Royal Assent

Lindsay Hoyle: I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that Her Majesty has signified her Royal Assent to the following Acts:
Critical Benchmarks (References and Administrators’ Liability) Act 2021
Rating (Coronavirus) and Directors Disqualification (Dissolved Companies) 2021
Armed Forces Act 2021.

Oral
Answers to
Questions

Scotland

The Secretary of State was asked—

Renewable Energy Generation

Bill Esterson: What recent discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy on supporting renewable energy generation in Scotland.

Andrew Gwynne: What recent discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy on supporting renewable energy generation in Scotland.

Iain Stewart: I regularly discuss issues of importance to Scotland with Ministers, including support for Scotland’s renewable energy sector. Our recently published net zero strategy will leverage up to £90 billion of private investment by 2030 across the entire UK.

Bill Esterson: Edinburgh based Nova Innovation is a success story in the tidal energy sector. There are plans for tidal energy schemes across the UK, including in the Liverpool city region, with the Mersey tidal barrage. Thanks in large part to the Labour party and the industry, £20 million is now available in the contracts for difference scheme, after years when there was nothing. Will the Minister commit to long-term support for the tidal energy industry, which has so much potential in Scotland, for my constituents in Merseyside and across the UK?

Iain Stewart: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to point to contracts for difference, the fourth round of which was announced at the beginning of this week and is bigger than the other three rounds put together. Scotland has punched above her weight, securing 21% of  the capacity in the previous rounds, and stands well placed—not just in tidal, but right across the spectrum of renewable energy. We are funding this in the short and long term.

Andrew Gwynne: The British Government have not backed the Acorn carbon capture and storage cluster, which is vital to Scotland’s path to net zero, but are maintaining support for the Cambo oilfield, which would dig up more fossil fuels for years to come. Does the Minister agree that the priority should always be supporting renewable energy generation, not fossil fuels?

Iain Stewart: The hon. Gentleman paints a misleading picture of the support that we are giving. I have just outlined to the hon. Member for Sefton Central (Bill Esterson) the long-term support that we are providing to the renewables sector. It is wrong to say that we are not backing Acorn. There was a competitive round for two carbon capture and storage schemes. Acorn was a good project; it is a reserved project. We continue to work with it to ensure that it has a fighting chance of securing the next tranche of the carbon capture and storage schemes.

David Duguid: I welcome the remarks made by my hon. Friend with regard to Acorn in my constituency, which is still very much on the table, despite protestations from Opposition Members. Will my hon. Friend confirm that the Government also provide the oil and gas industry with vital support for the energy transition through the North sea transition deal?

Iain Stewart: I can absolutely give my hon. Friend that assurance. I pay tribute to the tireless work that he does to champion the energy sector, both as a Minister and as a local Member. He is absolutely right; yes, we need to transition to renewable, but we have to be aware of the fact that we will need oil and gas during that transition period—not just for energy, but for the all the other purposes for which fossil fuels are required, such as the production of medicine.

Lindsay Hoyle: I welcome shadow Minister Liz Twist to her new post.

Liz Twist: Thank you, Mr Speaker.
The post-COP26 message is that Governments have little time to act on climate change. As the Secretary of State is aware, the Acorn carbon capture and storage project has not been given the go-ahead by the UK Government, but it could create 15,000 highly skilled jobs in Scotland and demonstrate that a just transition is feasible. The shadow Secretary of State for Scotland, my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray), wrote to the First Minister to encourage her to find a joint solution, but the reply contained more reasons not to work together and grievances than finding a solution for the project. Rather than the UK and Scottish Governments trading insults, will the Secretary of State back the Acorn project by finding a joint funding solution with the Scottish Government?

Iain Stewart: I welcome the hon. Lady to her new position. I look forward to our debates in the weeks and months ahead. I can advise her that she should probably  not be too surprised when letters from the Scottish Government are full of grievances—that is par for the course. On Acorn, we do support the scheme. There was a competitive bidding round, where it placed third. It is a reserved project, and we are working with it to ensure that it stands a good chance in the next tranche of the carbon capture and storage scheme.

Jacob Young: Alongside renewable energy, we need to accept our current energy mix with the energy transition. Does the Minister therefore share my anger at the Scottish Government’s complete dismissal of the Cambo oilfield, at the expense of oil and gas workers in Scotland and across the country?

Iain Stewart: My hon. Friend makes an important point. As I said a minute ago, we cannot just switch off oil and gas immediately. We want a transition, and this Government are investing significantly, with £160 million in floating wind farms, £20 million for tidal stream and the £285 million next round of contracts for difference, but it is important that we do not lose our domestic oil and gas supply not only for energy, but for the whole range of purposes, including medicine and other vital products.

Standards Impropriety: The Union

Steven Bonnar: What recent assessment he has made of the implications of allegations of standards impropriety for his Department’s work on strengthening the Union.

Alister Jack: We remain focused on delivering for Scotland within a strong United Kingdom. This can be seen by the scale of our investment, with more than £191 million of UK Government funding being invested directly in community projects across Scotland. This is real devolution in action.

Steven Bonnar: People in Scotland have rejected the Tories for the past 50 years. We decisively rejected the Prime Minister’s Brexit projects, and we rejected them once again at the last election. Some 65% of people in Scotland say that the Prime Minister is totally corrupt and 65% of people in Scotland also believe he should resign. Given that this coincides with a surge in independence, with more than half of the population in Scotland now supporting independence and the Scottish National party, does the Secretary of State agree that the corruption of the UK Government is driving Scots away from the Union? If he were truly interested in saving the Union, should he not be joining the rest of us in calling for the PM’s resignation?

Alister Jack: I will stick to the question, which is what we are doing to deliver for the people of Scotland, and I am delighted to answer that question. I will give the hon. Gentleman one example: with the Union connectivity review, there are huge opportunities to improve transport links between Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom, and I am dismayed that Members on the Opposition Benches refuse to support that.

Ian Murray: May I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Chris Elmore), who has left the shadow Scotland team and been significantly demoted in my view to the ministry of fun? I thank him for everything he did in that role. I welcome my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon (Liz Twist). I do not know what she did in her previous life to deserve it, but she will, as the House has already seen this morning, be wonderful in her new role on the shadow Scotland team, and we welcome her very much.
Every day, there are more and more revelations about the Prime Minister and this Government breaking their own lockdown rules. It truly is one rule for them and one for the rest of us. As the country cancelled Christmas last year, the Prime Minister had a party or three. The Government have lost all moral authority to lead this country, with scandal, sleaze and cronyism writ large. The Scottish Conservative leader was asked three times in the media at the weekend whether he could think of any positive attribute for the PM, and even he could not answer. Can the Secretary of State think of any positive attribute for the Prime Minister? Can he tell me any reason why this morally bankrupt Prime Minister is not a bigger threat to the Union than any nationalist?

Alister Jack: Absolutely, without any difficulty, I can. The Prime Minister is a man of optimism, he is a man of vision and he is a man who delivered the trade deal running up to Christmas last year when no one said he could. He showed courage. He showed foresight in investing in the vaccine development, and he has gone on to deliver the fastest vaccine roll-out in Europe.

Ian Murray: I congratulate the Secretary of State on his reading ability, and I notice that he did not use the word “honesty”—there’s a surprise. I know the Secretary of State has cancelled his own Christmas party this year, so I look forward to seeing the photographs from it in the press shortly.
A major strength of the Union is of course the pooling and sharing of resources. The First Minister has announced a raft of new covid guidance this week that has devastated the hospitality trade. At the same time, she has offered pitiful financial support and criticised the UK Government for not providing funds. Such sectors want our two Governments to work together: they need our help. A hospitality business in my constituency sent me an email last night, saying:
“my customers have been driven away so we won’t survive these latest restrictions without government support. We always need a good festive season to see us through the winter. Where is the financial support?”
Why can the UK and Scottish Governments not work together to provide the financial support that these hospitality businesses deserve and need?

Alister Jack: The hon. Gentleman makes a very serious point. Hospitality is under a lot of pressure across the United Kingdom, not least in Scotland. The Treasury announced yesterday afternoon, just ahead of the First Minister’s statement, that we were giving the Scottish Government certainty over their finances, and that is the first point I would make. What the Scottish Government have failed to do is set out what measures they believe are right for Scotland and how much these would cost, and that is an important thing to understand. They  have also failed to explain how they cannot afford to act on their own, given that they have a record settlement this year of over £41 billion of block grant—the highest block grant settlement in real terms since devolution began.

Mhairi Black: Following on from the shadow Secretary of State, could I ask the Secretary of State whether he was invited to any of these parties in Downing Street and whether he had any knowledge of these parties?

Alister Jack: If the hon. Lady had been at the Scottish Affairs Committee last Monday, when I was one of the witnesses—or if she had read the briefing from that—she would know that I was asked that question by the Chairman, the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart), and I answered very clearly that, first, I had no knowledge of the parties, and secondly, I was not at any of them.

Mhairi Black: I am sorry for the floundering social life of the Secretary of State, but if I could, I will move on to the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill (Steven Bonnar) made. We talk about the Prime Minister’s vision, but does that vision not go against what the majority of people in Scotland voted for, given that they are against Brexit, the majority are against the Prime Minister and they are against the Conservatives? So is it not the case that the best chance this Prime Minister has of saving the Union and rebuilding trust in our covid response is by resigning?

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. I am going to allow that, but we really need to be within the scope of the question. It is party politics, and I do not want us to get into that, but it is Christmas, so I am sure the Secretary of State will want to answer.

Alister Jack: You are right, Mr Speaker. I would say again to the hon. Lady, if we are talking about majorities, that the First Minister failed to get a majority in May. Let us be clear that less than a third of Scots voted for her in May. Our focus, and the Prime Minister’s focus, is on fighting this pandemic and then recovery from this pandemic, and on bringing forward great things for Scotland, such as the Union connectivity review, freeports and investing directly with local authorities structural funds.

Cross-border Transport Connectivity

James Davies: What discussions he has had with Cabinet colleagues on improving transport connections between Scotland and the rest of the UK.

Iain Stewart: I have regular discussions with ministerial colleagues about cross-border connectivity. Sir Peter Hendy’s report, published last month, covers a wide range of solutions spanning all transport modes across the United Kingdom. We will take time to consider carefully all the recommendations in the report, and we will publish our response in the new year.

James Davies: Investing in zero-emission technologies is essential for future public transport connections. Scotland, as well as other parts of the country, is of course an important manufacturing base for buses. Can my hon. Friend confirm that the Government are working hard to ensure that British manufacturing leads the way in fulfilling our world-leading commitments to introduce zero-emission buses?

Iain Stewart: I am happy to give my hon. Friend that assurance. We remain committed to supporting the introduction of 4,000 zero-emission buses and to achieving a zero-emission bus fleet. I think I am right in saying that transport is now the biggest single contributor in this country to carbon emissions, so it is absolutely right that we back our domestic industry to help deliver these zero-emission buses.

Lindsay Hoyle: Let us bring in the shy Member—Jim Shannon.

Jim Shannon: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Can I ask the Minister this question? Now that the bridge between Scotland and Northern Ireland has been laid to bed at long last, can the Minister indicate what will be done to improve the roads from Larne to Stranraer and further on, because it is important for us in Northern Ireland, where we have tourism and we have business, that the roads are up to a certain standard? What has been done to improve those?

Iain Stewart: The hon. Gentleman raises an important question. The thinking behind the connectivity review is that we look at transport connections right across the UK. The A75 from Stranraer and Cairnryan to the motorway network is in desperate need of an upgrade, and that was one of the central recommendations of Sir Peter’s report. We absolutely see that as an important corridor.

Oil and Gas Sector

Andrew Jones: What discussions he has had with Cabinet colleagues on the future of the oil and gas sector in Scotland.

Alister Jack: My ministerial colleagues and I regularly discuss oil and gas with fellow Government Ministers and stakeholders. The oil and gas industry is hugely important to north-east Scotland, and most recently the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, my noble Friend Lord Offord attended the North Sea Transition Forum, alongside the Minister for Energy, Clean Growth and Climate Change, regulators, and representatives from the oil and gas industry.

Andrew Jones: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. In the transition period to our net-zero future, we will still need oil and gas for domestic use. What role does the Secretary of State see for UK domestic production to meet that need, because the Scottish economy is well poised to deliver it?

Alister Jack: My hon. Friend is right: we will continue to need oil and gas as we transition to net zero. Developing our own supplies reduces reliance on imports that are  produced to less rigorous environmental standards. It will also protect jobs in our oil and gas sector during our transition. Comments by the Scottish Government on this have been, by turn, disgraceful and depressing. As Sir Ian Wood, one of the most respected authorities in the industry said, those Scottish Government Ministers are creating an “adverse investment environment”, to which I would add only this: careless talk costs livelihoods.

Richard Thomson: Is the Secretary of State aware of the evidence given to the Scottish Parliament’s Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee by Professor Stuart Haszeldine, who said that there was no advantage to the Acorn project having been given reserve bidder status, as that merely means “a lot of meetings”, and requires companies to
“run on the spot with very little or no funding”?
Is the professor wrong in his assessment, and if so, would the right hon. Gentleman be good enough to tell us why?

Alister Jack: Acorn is the reserve for this round, and we would like it to be expedited in the next wave. We have met many of the stakeholders involved in the project, and they have agreed that if we can accelerate it to 2023, they can improve the bid and the Government can include it in the next wave. That is very much our focus.

Andrew Bowie: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the complete abandonment of north-east oil and gas workers by the First Minister of Scotland is an absolute disgrace? She did not call for an end just to Cambo; it was to all further exploration in the North sea. Will the Secretary of State confirm that this Government stand full square behind the industry and workers in the north-east, unlike the Scottish Government?

Alister Jack: I would add that the remark of the First Minister’s Minister, the Green party MSP, who said that only “hard-right extremists” want to explore oil, was also disgraceful. Even when we get to 2050, we will need oil for 20% of our power, and we will need gas for 15%, and for producing blue hydrogen. We will need that oil not just for power, but for important things such as the petrochemicals industry and for making instruments for the NHS. It is ridiculous to think that we can just turn off the taps and not destroy our economy.

Stephen Flynn: This is not just about what we extract from the North sea; it is also about what we put back in. That is why the Acorn project is fundamental. The Secretary of State mentioned Sir Ian Wood and his views on the oil and gas sector, but he will also be cognisant of Sir Ian Wood’s views about his Government’s decision to turn their back on Acorn. Will the Secretary of State finally admit to regretting the decision of his colleagues?

Alister Jack: I have discussed this matter with Sir Ian Wood, and I do not think the hon. Gentleman reflects his views fairly. Sir Ian Wood understands and agrees with us that the bid can be improved. To be clear, the difference between Acorn and Humberside, Teesside and Merseyside, was that Humberside, Teesside and Merseyside have a huge hinterland of industrial carbon.  Acorn was bringing the carbon from all parts of the UK and/or Europe to make the bid work. We are working on how to get more industrial carbon into the project, to make it more viable and to expedite it for 2023.

Army Restructuring

Scott Benton: What discussions he has had with Cabinet colleagues on the implications for Scotland of plans to restructure the British Army.

Tom Randall: What discussions he has had with Cabinet colleagues on the implications for Scotland of plans to restructure the British Army.

Alister Jack: My office and I have regular discussions with the Ministry of Defence on all matters relating to defence in Scotland, including the latest plans to modernise and restructure the Army. I was pleased that the review included plans for the Army to expand its footprint in Scotland; it is going from six to seven units, and Scotland will have a greater proportion of the Army than today.
While I have the opportunity, I would also like to thank our fantastic British armed forces who are currently supporting the booster programme in Scotland. The Secretary of State for Defence announced yesterday that a further 100 military personnel will support the vital booster campaign, and today the MOD has announced that another 80 medics are going to three NHS boards in Scotland. That means that over 400 military personnel are supporting Scotland’s health services.

Scott Benton: Does the Secretary of State agree that the “Future Soldier” paper shows just how important defence is to Scotland and Scotland is to the defence of the UK and our allies, and does he share my enthusiasm that it delivers £355 million-worth of investment in the Army estate in Scotland?

Alister Jack: Absolutely. Scotland plays a vital role in the defence of the UK. The Army’s future soldier restructuring programme is great news for Scotland. Not only will it deliver £355 million of investment in the Army’s Scottish estate, as my hon. Friend pointed out, but Scotland will gain a major unit and, as I said, we will see a greater proportion of the British Army in Scotland.

Tom Randall: Soldiers from Scotland have had a central role in the armed forces over many centuries, from the charge of the Scots Greys at Waterloo, to the western front, to helping roll out our vaccine programme. Can my right hon. Friend assure me that that proud central role will continue as strongly as ever in Scotland following any restructuring?

Alister Jack: Under the future soldier review, the Army’s footprint in Scotland will be stronger than ever, recognising the immense contribution that Scottish servicemen and women make to the British Army. I am pleased that Scottish troops will continue the tradition, and they will lead the new Ranger Regiment, deploying alongside partner forces to counter extremist organisations and hostile state threats.

Scottish Economy: Support

Chris Elmore: What recent steps the Government have taken to help support the Scottish economy.

Alister Jack: The Budget and the spending review provide the largest annual block grant to the devolved Administration in Scotland since the Scotland Act 1998. Throughout the pandemic we have provided significant support, including through our furlough and self-employment schemes and additional support to businesses, on top of an extra £14.5 billion for the Scottish Government. We are also investing in new local infrastructure and regeneration projects through the levelling-up fund and community ownership fund, alongside the existing £1.5 billion investment in Scottish city and growth deals.

Chris Elmore: The Scottish Budget last week should have marked the start of an ambitious recovery plan for Scotland, but instead it is a missed opportunity that will not deliver the recovery Scotland needs. Similarly, the UK Government’s Budget offered tax cuts for bankers on business class flights but nowhere near enough for hard-working families across Scotland and the rest of the UK. Does the Secretary of State accept that both the Scottish and UK Governments must go further so we can get the economy firing on all cylinders?

Alister Jack: I accept that both Governments need to work together—the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right about that—but the UK Government are doing their bit, with a block grant of £41.3 billion, £4.6 billion higher than last year and the highest since devolution began; £14.5 billion of covid funding since the pandemic began; a furlough scheme supporting over 900,000 jobs in Scotland, and grants and loans to businesses totalling over £4 billion. The UK Government are doing exactly what they need to do to support the Scottish economy.

Tidal Power

Sally-Ann Hart: What assessment his Department has made of the effectiveness of support for the Scottish tidal power sector.

Iain Stewart: I am delighted that the Government recently announced a new £20 million ringfenced allocation for tidal stream technology as part of the new contracts for difference round. That will enable Scotland to take advantage of the huge potential that exists to develop tidal stream technology.

Sally-Ann Hart: The Scottish Affairs Committee visited Orkney a few months ago when collating evidence for its report on renewable energy. We were so impressed with the tidal stream technology, which is less expensive than tidal lagoon barrage technology. I am delighted that the renewable energy auction will include for the first time a ring fence for tidal stream power. How will that turbocharge the potential for this type of renewable energy in Scotland?

Iain Stewart: I am very glad that my hon. Friend and her colleagues on the Committee had the opportunity to visit Orkney. I also visited Orkney in August and was hugely impressed by the innovation that is going on  there. The principle behind contracts for difference is that it gives the renewables sector the confidence to invest in these long-term technologies. I believe Scotland as a whole, and Orkney in particular, will be at the forefront of that.

Lindsay Hoyle: Before we come to Prime Minister’s questions, I would like to point out that the British Sign Language interpretation of proceedings is available to watch on parliamentlive.tv.

Prime Minister

The Prime Minister was asked—

Engagements

Nick Smith: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 15 December.

Boris Johnson: I am sure the whole House will want to join me in wishing you, Mr Speaker, and all members of staff—and indeed all Members—a merry Christmas and a happy new year. Members from across the House will also want to join me in sending our warmest wishes to all our armed forces, all members of the emergency services and all health and care workers, especially those who will be working over Christmas, not least on our national mission to get boosted now.
This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House, I shall have further such meetings later today.

Nick Smith: I congratulate the Prime Minister and his wife on the birth of their baby daughter. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] Last week was crime week. Was it a success for you, Prime Minister?

Boris Johnson: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind words. Yes, it was, because last week we showed that we are not only the party that is putting in the resources to fight crime, with 10,000 more police already recruited, but the party that is finally getting tough on the drugs gangs that blight the lives of children and communities up and down this country. We will not tolerate middle-class drug use any more than any other kind of drug use.

Nicola Richards: May I start by wishing the Prime Minister and his family a happy Christmas? Last Christmas, I joined the charity Sewa Day in wrapping Christmas presents at Durga Bhawan Temple. I delivered a small number of the thousands of gifts the Hindu community had donated for children and adults across Sandwell. Will the Prime Minister join me in thanking Sewa Day, Deepak, Madhu and Reena, who I will be joining again this Friday at West Bromwich Shree Krishna Mandir?

Boris Johnson: I thank my hon. Friend for raising the work of Sewa Day and all the people of the West Bromwich Hindu community, who make an incredible contribution to this country. I am delighted that the charity is again distributing donated gifts. Thank you to everyone involved, particularly my hon. Friend for her efforts.

Keir Starmer: Can I also wish you, Mr Speaker, everybody who works in this House and all Members a merry Christmas and a happy new year? Can I also send my congratulations to the Prime Minister and his wife on the birth of their daughter, and join the Prime Minister in supporting our armed forces and all those on the front line?
There were 200,000 omicron infections on Monday. That is doubling every two or three days and the NHS could be overwhelmed, so I want to start by encouraging everyone listening to this session to get their jabs and boosters. It is the best way to protect themselves, the NHS and their loved ones. Given the seriousness of the situation, does the Prime Minister agree that the 100 Conservative Members who voted against plan B measures last night, voted against steps that are necessary to protect the NHS and to protect lives?

Boris Johnson: The Government are taking a balanced and proportionate approach to dealing with the pandemic. The House voted through plan B with Conservative votes and we will continue with the massive booster roll-out, to which the right hon. and learned Gentleman is a late convert. Since Friday, when I decided that we had to accelerate the booster programme in view of the data about omicron, we have cut the timetable in half. Monday was the biggest vaccination Monday in the history of this country, and yesterday was the second biggest vaccination achievement by the NHS ever. More than 500,000 jabs were delivered and the campaign continues to grow. I thank absolutely everybody involved and I thank all the British public for coming forward to get boosted now.

Keir Starmer: We all hope that, combined with the booster programme, plan B will be sufficient to prevent the NHS from being overwhelmed. Nobody wants to see further restrictions, but the Prime Minister has rightly not ruled anything out, so can I take this opportunity to make it clear to him that, if further votes are needed to save lives and protect the NHS, Labour MPs will follow my leadership and we will always put the national interest first? Can I ask the Prime Minister to get his house in order so he can say the same about the Members behind him?

Boris Johnson: Yes, if further measures are needed, as the House will understand—if further regulation is needed—of course this House will have a further say. As for hon. Members following the right hon. and learned Gentleman’s leadership, they wibble-wobbled over plan B, they wibble-wobbled over quarantine, and if we had listened to him, we would not even have the vaccine roll-out because we would have remained in the European Medicines Agency—[Interruption.] It is true. And we would not have opened up on 19 July; we would have remained in lockdown. That is the reality.

Keir Starmer: Let me put that straight back in its box: the Labour party showed the leadership yesterday that the Prime Minister lacks. If it was not for Labour votes, his Government would not have been able to introduce the vital health measures we need to save lives and protect the NHS—so weak is his leadership. His own MPs were wrong to vote against basic public health measures, but I can understand why they are angry with him. After all, the Health Secretary said this  summer that relaxations of restrictions were “irreversible”. They were not. [Interruption.] Only last week—[Interruption.]

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. I have been tempted by both hon. Members who are interrupting a little too much. It is Christmas—that is the only reason you are going to remain here.

Keir Starmer: Only last week, the Government were saying that plan B measures were not required. They are. Just like “the rail revolution for the north”, “no one will have to sell their homes for social care” and “no tax rises”, it is overpromise after overpromise until reality catches up. Does the Prime Minister understand why his own MPs no longer trust him?

Boris Johnson: There he goes again—the right hon. and learned Gentleman comes to this House pompously claiming that he wants to rise above party politics and support the efforts of the nation in delivering the vaccine roll-out, and then he talks endlessly about party politics and plays political games. What the people of this country can see is that, as a result of what this Government have done, with the tough decisions that we have taken—which he ducked—to deliver the fastest vaccine roll-out in Europe and now the fastest booster roll-out, we have the fastest growing economy in the G7 and 500,000 more jobs today than there were when the pandemic began. That is Conservative Government in action. We deliver—they complain.

Keir Starmer: The only person undermining public confidence is sitting right there opposite me. Here is the problem: his MPs are wrong to vote against basic public health measures, but they are not wrong to distrust him. Last week, the Conservative right hon. Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper) asked:
“Why should people at home, listening to the Prime Minister…do things that people working in…Downing Street are not prepared to do?”—
a Tory MP. The Conservative hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) last week asked:
“Will he give me any reason at all why I should not tell my constituents to treat these new rules…the same way that…Downing Street treated last year’s rules?”—[Official Report, 8 December 2021; Vol. 705, c. 499-500.]
The Prime Minister has had a week to come up with a good answer. Has he done so?

Boris Johnson: The answer is very, very clear. It is there in what the public are doing, because they can see that the Government are getting on with delivering on their priorities, not just on the economy, but above all on delivering the fastest booster roll-out in Europe. The right hon. and learned Gentleman is fond of these European comparisons, but we have done almost double the percentage of any other European country. We have boosted 86% of the over-80s in this country and 91% of those aged 75 to 79. That is an astonishing achievement. I think that that is what the people of this country are focused on, rather than the partisan trivia that he continually raises when frankly he has a case to answer himself.

Keir Starmer: I think that is a no: the Prime Minister has not come up with a good answer. For weeks, he has claimed that no rules were broken. He claims that he did not know what was happening in his own house last  Christmas. I do not believe him, his MPs do not believe him and nor do the British public. He is taking the public for fools and it is becoming dangerous, because from today, anyone who tests positive for coronavirus faces a second Christmas in isolation. It will be heartbreaking for families across the country.
The message from the Government has to be “We know that following the rules won’t be easy this Christmas, but it is necessary.” Can the Prime Minister not see that he has no hope of regaining the moral authority to deliver that difficult message if he cannot be straight with the British public about the rule breaking in Downing Street last Christmas?

Boris Johnson: I have repeatedly answered that question before. As the right hon. and learned Gentleman knows, a report is being delivered to me by the Cabinet Secretary into exactly what went on. The right hon. and learned Gentleman might explain why there are pictures of him quaffing beer—we have not heard him do so.
I think that what the British public want us all to do, frankly, is focus on the matter in hand and continue to deliver the vaccine roll-out in the way that we are doing. I think that it is an absolutely fantastic thing that people are now coming forward in the way that they are: 45% of people over 18 have now had a vaccine. I thank our amazing staff, I thank the NHS, I thank all the GPs—

Toby Perkins: Give them a pay rise, then.

Boris Johnson: Well, you blocked the investment in them. Labour Members wouldn’t vote for investment in our NHS—they wouldn’t do it.
I thank NHS staff for what they are doing. I can tell the House that we are now speeding things up by allowing people to avoid the 15-minute delay after they have been vaccinated, which I hope will encourage even more people to come forward.

Keir Starmer: The virus is spreading once again, and lives and livelihoods are at risk. The British public are looking for a Prime Minister with the trust and the authority to lead Britain through the crisis. Instead, we are burdened with the worst possible Prime Minister at the worst possible time. [Interruption.] Conservative Members are shouting now. Where were they in the Lobby last night?
The Prime Minister’s own MPs have had enough. They will not defend him, they will not turn up to support him, and they will not vote for basic public health measures if he proposes them. At this time of national effort, the Labour party has stood up, shown the leadership that the Prime Minister cannot show, and put the health and security of the British people first. [Interruption.]

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. This is silly, because I cannot hear the question. I will hear the question. [Interruption.] I do not think that we need any more help from the Government Front Bench. I am dealing with this corner first.
I understand that this is the last PMQs and we will not be back till the new year, but I need to hear the question. It may take a long time, but I will hear it. So, please: I want to get through questions and I want you all to get away for Christmas. At this rate, you won’t.

Keir Starmer: The Prime Minister is so weak that, without Labour votes last night, vital public health measures would not have got through—

Boris Johnson: Not true.

Keir Starmer: The Prime Minister says it is not true—he is so socially distanced from the truth that he thinks that is not true. I do not know where to start. We had better press on. We cannot go on with a Prime Minister who is too weak to lead. Will he take time this Christmas to look in the mirror and ask himself whether he has the trust and authority lead this country?

Boris Johnson: We won that vote last night with Conservative votes, as I have told the House. I respect the feelings and anxieties that colleagues have, of course I do. I respect and understand the legitimate anxieties they have about restrictions on their liberty and the liberty of people, but I believe the approach that we are taking is balanced and proportionate and right for this country.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman talks about leadership. Let me tell the House about some of the tough decisions that I have had to take. I had to decide to stay out of the European ventilator scheme so that we had our own ventilator channels, which he then ridiculously attacked. I decided to go ahead with the vaccine roll-out, ahead of the rest of Europe, which would have been impossible if we had listened to him. I decided to go ahead with opening up our society and our economy on 19 July, which he opposed.
Never forget that if we had listened to the right hon. and learned Gentleman we would not now have the fastest economic growth of the G7. It is because we took those courageous steps that we now have 500,000 more people in work than there were when the pandemic began, and yesterday I saw 1.2 million job vacancies. That is what Conservative Governments do. They create employment and they create business opportunities. Above all, we vaccinate, they vacillate. They jabber, we jab. They play party politics, and we get on with the job.

Hon. Members:: More! More!

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. I am absolutely amazed that some of you wanted to catch my eye. Obviously you do not now. Thanks for that—it is making my life easier. Do not be shocked when I do not call you to put that special question today.
Let us come to the man of the moment, Dr Liam Fox.

Liam Fox: As we look forward to 2022, one of the dates that stands out for me is 21 March, which will be World Down Syndrome Day. In thanking the Government, and indeed all parties in the House, for their support for the Down Syndrome Bill, may I ask the Prime Minister if he will give his personal commitment to ensuring that we get that Bill on to the statute book before World Down Syndrome Day, so that we can be the first country in the world to do so? We talk about global Britain, but that cannot just be about trade and diplomacy; it must also be about values. Would that not be a great place for Britain to start?

Boris Johnson: My right hon. Friend is a wonderful campaigner on this issue, and he is completely right about Down’s syndrome people. They can have poorer health outcomes, but I know that the Bill aims to improve life outcomes for people with Down’s syndrome. We are pleased to support it and we will do whatever we can to ensure the prompt progress of this Bill.

Ian Blackford: Mr Speaker, I wish you, all your staff and all Members of the House a merry Christmas and a guid new year when it comes. I also send my thanks to those on the frontline in the emergency services and armed forces for everything they have done to get us through this year.
The public understand the threat that omicron poses to all our people and to our NHS. As we saw from last night’s vote, the Tories might be privileged enough to live in denial about this danger, but the rest of us have a responsibility to live in the real world. That means increasing public health measures and increasing financial support for businesses and workers.
The Scottish Government are delivering £100 million from our fixed budget to support businesses, but we all know that more is needed. Yesterday, the UK Government put out a press release saying that new financial support was coming, but last night the Treasury U-turned, saying that no new money was available. So, Prime Minister, which is it? Is there any new money to support businesses or was it all just smoke and mirrors once again?

Boris Johnson: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman, and I share some of the views he expressed about the importance of being vigilant about omicron. It is good that he set that out. I think it important that we continue to work with the Scottish Administration, as we do, to help everybody through this.
As the right hon. Gentleman knows, there is more money through Barnett consequentials, and there are also further powers under the existing devolutionary settlement for the Scottish Administration to raise money if they choose to—they have that option—but we will of course continue our discussions with them.

Ian Blackford: That simply was not an answer, and it just confirms that it is all smoke and mirrors. There was no new money for Scotland. Once again, the Prime Minister cannot trust a word that this Prime Minister says—[Interruption.] Dodgy dealings on renovations and his distant relationship with the truth—all of it has left him weak.
Last night, this UK Government struggled to get measures through the House that Scotland has had for months. A Prime Minister who cannot do what is needed to protect the public is no Prime Minister at all. No one wants further restrictions, but Scotland cannot afford to be hamstrung if the Prime Minister cannot act because he has 99 problems sitting behind him. Will he give the devolved Governments the powers and the financial support that we need to protect our people?

Boris Johnson: I think we are going to need a bigger waistcoat to contain the synthetic indignation of the right hon. Gentleman, quite frankly. I can tell him that the Scottish Administration have the powers, and, moreover, that we have delivered a record settlement for Scotland of £41 billion. But let me also say, in all  friendship with the right hon. Gentleman—with whom I am actually quite cordial behind the scenes—that we will work with the Scottish Government to make sure that we get through this thing together.

Bob Neill: Stroke is the leading cause of adult disability in the United Kingdom. It is the fourth largest killer. We have made much progress but regrettably, in the last couple of years, key treatments such as thrombectomy, thrombolysis and timely interventions in hospital have stalled and gone backwards. In particular, most stroke survivors receive less than half the recommended levels of rehabilitation. As the Prime Minister knows, that is something that my own family have experienced. Can we urgently look towards upgrading the very good national stroke plan to a fully fledged national strategy for stroke, with a Minister responsible for it and a dedicated team of officials in the Department to roll it out?

Boris Johnson: I thank my hon. Friend for his question. He and I have discussed before his own personal reasons for caring so much about this issue, and I understand and sympathise deeply with what he has said. That is one the reasons why I want to make sure that we do invest enough in this. There are 20 integrated stroke networks in England already, but we want to increase their capacity about tenfold.
I shall be happy to ensure that my hon. Friend has the right meeting with the relevant Minister to discuss the matter. This is why it is so important that we invest now in our NHS in the way that we are—and what a pity that that essential measure could not be supported by the Labour party.

Colum Eastwood: The Prime Minister’s actions over the last number of months have absolutely eroded public confidence at the worst possible time, during a public health crisis. Excusing rule-breaking by his own MPs, ignoring rule-breaking in his own house—he cannot even lead Tory MPs to vote for his public health guidance, so how can he expect to lead anybody else? Surely it is now time for him to do the right thing, the only thing left to him to restore public confidence, and resign.

Boris Johnson: No, Mr Speaker, I am going to get on with protecting the public of this country, making sure that we get through this pandemic together as one United Kingdom, and making sure that we protect trade between Great Britain and Northern Ireland in the way that I know the hon. Gentleman would want it protected.

Peter Aldous: In East Anglia, there are, on the one hand, tremendous opportunities in such sectors as low-carbon energy and sustainable fishing, and yet, on the other hand, significant challenges with deep pockets of deprivation, particularly in coastal communities. I acknowledge the investment that has been made, but there is a concern locally that the Government are yet to comprehend the scale of the opportunity that our region has to be a global exemplar in new and revitalised industries, and in doing so to bring transformative and long-term benefits to local people. Will my right hon. Friend meet  me and other East Anglian MPs so that together we can put in place a strategy to realise the full potential of the east of England?

Boris Johnson: Yes, but I also want to say that I understand completely the massive opportunity and the potential that exists in those coastal communities. That is why we are already investing £120 million in five new town deals, including for Lowestoft. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Levelling Up will want to be taking my hon. Friend’s points on board as we bring forward the levelling up White Paper in the new year.

Stephen Flynn: Does the Prime Minister believe that it is the damage being caused by Brexit, his litany of broken promises, his condoning of Conservative party corruption, or just simply his complicity in lockdown-busting Christmas parties and quizzes that has caused the public to so dramatically, so rapidly, lose faith in his leadership?

Boris Johnson: What I observe is that actually it was our freedom from the rules of the European Union that enabled us to deliver the fastest vaccine roll-out in Europe and that has enabled us to have the fastest economic growth in the G7. That is of massive benefit to each and every one of the hon. Gentleman’s constituents, and I think he should acknowledge that point.

Laura Farris: One of the significant achievements of this Government is the work they have done with local authorities to tackle rough sleeping. Five years ago, 36 people were sleeping rough in the Newbury area; this Christmas, West Berkshire Council has reduced that to zero. But it can only sustain that success with the help of additional support services to tackle the complex causes of homelessness. What action will the Government take through their new 10-year drugs strategy to intercept the link between addiction and life on the streets?

Boris Johnson: My hon. Friend is completely right to draw the link between drug addiction and rough sleeping. That is why our drugs strategy is so absolutely vital for tackling this problem. I also want to thank local councils and everybody involved in the Everyone In campaign. Homelessness and rough sleeping are a blight and a disgrace—a shame for our society. I am proud to say that our rough sleeping snapshot shows that levels have fallen by 43% since 2017, although clearly, as we come out of the pandemic in the next year or so, we must make sure that we continue to reduce rough sleeping. It remains an absolute priority for this Government.

Ben Lake: With the emergence of the omicron variant and the rising number of covid infections, more and more people are being asked to self-isolate or stay at home to look after isolating children. I have been contacted by people in Ceredigion who have been excluded from isolation support payments as they are not in receipt of benefits or are above the weekly earnings threshold. Will the Prime Minister act urgently to increase statutory sick pay, which currently stands at a mere £96.35 a week, so  that people in this position do not have to choose between following public health regulations and putting food on the table?

Boris Johnson: I thank the hon. Gentleman very much. I understand the difficulty that some families will find themselves in. We want to look after everybody throughout the pandemic. That is why we have done things like lifting the living wage in the way we have and increasing the funds available for childcare, but also making sure that councils have an extra hardship fund of half a billion pounds to help families of the kind that he describes through this winter.

Kieran Mullan: Following confirmation of the Crewe to Manchester leg of High Speed 2, the Alstom factory in Crewe winning an HS2 rolling stock contract and Crewe’s long history at the heart of our railway industry, does the Prime Minister agree that Crewe is a strong contender for the headquarters of Great British Railways? Can he tell me when the process to choose a location for the new HQ will start?

Boris Johnson: My brief says I should be very careful of what I say. I have no doubt that Crewe is a strong contender, but further details of the competition will be announced in the coming weeks. Expressions of interest from places such as Crewe will be very welcome.

Maria Eagle: After inquest verdicts that the 97 people who died in the Hillsborough disaster were unlawfully killed, the right hon. Gentleman stood for election to this House on a manifesto that included legislating to introduce a public advocate. Why, then, have his Government repeatedly blocked my Public Advocate Bill, which has cross-party support and would prevent families bereaved by public disasters from ever again having to endure what the Hillsborough families have had to cope with over the past 32 years? Is it an oversight or yet another broken promise?

Boris Johnson: I thank the hon. Lady and, no, we do recognise the importance of putting the bereaved, such as the bereaved of Hillsborough, at the heart of investigations. In certain circumstances funding may be available for representation of the bereaved at a public inquiry or interest. We are considering what steps should be taken, and I will ensure she has a meeting with the relevant Home Office Minister as soon as possible.

Bernard Jenkin: As we see Russian forces massing on the Ukrainian border, can we be reminded that Russia is also continuing to carry out cyber-attacks, to attempt assassinations, to use gas as a political weapon, to illegally hold territory in Crimea and Georgia, to intimidate the west and to attempt to interfere in western elections? How much do the Government understand that President Putin is conducting a hybrid war against the west, and how are they responding?

Boris Johnson: I am afraid my hon. Friend is absolutely right in what he says. He is right to stress the particular urgency of the situation, and he is right in what he says about hybrid warfare and all the other interventions. We face a particular crisis on the border  with Ukraine, where Russian troops have been massing for some time, as the House knows. I told President Putin on Monday that I think everybody in the G7 and more widely is agreed that, if Russia were so rash and mad as to engage in an invasion of the sovereign territory of Ukraine, an extremely tough package of economic sanctions would be mounted by the UK and our friends around the world. Of course, there would also be support for Ukraine, and there would inevitably be a build-up of NATO forces in the periphery regions. As I told President Putin, I believe any such action would be catastrophic not just for Russia and Ukraine but for the world.

Kate Hollern: The Prime Minister made an address to the nation on Sunday about covid booster jabs, and he said that every eligible adult
“will have the chance to get their booster before the New Year.”
That is roughly two weeks away. However, the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care and our national health leaders have said otherwise. We know that those who deliver our health service were not adequately consulted and that the infrastructure to deliver it was not prepared. Will this be yet another broken promise, Prime Minister?

Boris Johnson: Yes, this is a massive national effort and, yes, it will be incredibly hard to achieve, but do I believe that our NHS, our GPs and our volunteers can do it? Yes, I do. That is the spirit in which the hon. Lady and the whole House should approach it. Rather than talking down our approach, I advise all Labour Members and all colleagues in this House to tell our constituents to get boosted now.

Thomas Tugendhat: I very much welcome my right hon. Friend’s answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin), with its emphasis on global Britain and partnership in standing up to autocracies. Does he therefore share my concern about reports that I have just got from the Foreign Office of a staff cut of 10% across the board? How is that compatible with global Britain?

Boris Johnson: We are investing massively in overseas aid—this country is spending £10 billion a year on overseas aid. I think that if you look at what we are doing on aid, on the Foreign Office and on Defence, we are, at £54 billion, the biggest spender on overseas activities of any country in Europe. My hon. Friend is an expert on foreign affairs, but I am assured by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary that the information that has recently trickled into his ears is fake news.

Ruth Cadbury: Transport for London faces serious financial difficulties solely due to the pandemic causing a collapse in fares income. Emergency covid funding to TfL expires the day after tomorrow. Prior to the pandemic, the Mayor of London spent four years improving TfL’s finances after—

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. There will be a nightmare in a moment. Can I just say that we want to get through the questions? I was hoping to get some extra people in, and you are not helping me do so. Come on in, Ruth Cadbury.

Ruth Cadbury: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Prior to the pandemic, the Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, spent four years improving TfL’s finances after his predecessor inexplicably bargained away TfL’s £700 million annual Government grant. By failing to meet the Mayor on extending the emergency covid grant, the Government are putting the city’s economy and environment at risk. Rail companies have had additional support. Will the Prime Minister instruct silent Shapps to meet the Mayor immediately so that buses and tubes can continue to keep London moving from Friday?

Boris Johnson: This happens to be one of the subjects that I know more about than probably anybody else in the House. When I was Mayor and chairman of Transport for London, we had our finances in balance because I ran a responsible fares policy. When I left the mayoralty, we had Crossrail in surplus and our reserves in surplus. Actually, what happened was that the Labour Mayor of London embarked on a reckless, unfunded fares policy, cutting fares recklessly so as to leave a huge black hole in Transport for London’s finances. Yes, we have the greatest capital—[Interruption.] We will of course help the stricken Labour Mayor in any way that we can, but the blame lies fairly and squarely with City Hall.

Paul Howell: I wish all our constituents across the country a merry Christmas and a safe 2022. What matters to my Sedgefield constituents is jobs, jobs, jobs. Will the Prime Minister join me in congratulating Hitachi and Alstom on securing the HS2 rolling stock contract? It is a tremendous vote of confidence in the people of Newton Aycliffe and Sedgefield. Will he encourage the Secretary of State for Transport to confirm that the feasibility study for Ferryhill station will be approved at his earliest convenience so that we can get on with levelling up and building back better for Ferryhill, Bishop Middleham, Sedgefield and the Cornforths?

Boris Johnson: My hon. Friend is a great advocate for Sedgefield, his constituents and levelling up. I congratulate Hitachi and Alstom on securing the HS2 stock order and the proponents of Ferryhill station for completing the initial business case for the scheme. That is part of the £96 billion investment that we are making in our railway infrastructure, which is the biggest in 100 years, dwarfing anything that the Labour party has ever embarked on. We will get on with uniting and levelling up across our country.

Carolyn Harris: I am sure the Prime Minister would like to thank me, as he was kept in the dark about last year’s festivities, for my assistance in lighting the Christmas tree in Downing Street this year. Unlike the Prime Minister, I am not in the dark about what my staff are doing this year: we are serving and delivering over 1,000 hampers and gifts to families across Swansea to ensure that they get a Christmas. Will he join me in congratulating and thanking everyone involved in Everyone Deserves a Christmas? If he would like to come and light a tree in my constituency, I will ensure there is one available for him.

Boris Johnson: That is one of the nicest things somebody has said to me from the Opposition Benches for a long time. I do want to thank and congratulate  everybody in the hon. Lady’s constituency who is helping to bring hampers to those who need them this Christmas. It is a wonderful thing.

Robbie Moore: My thoughts and I am sure the thoughts of the whole House are with those who loved Star Hobson, who was brutally murdered in Keighley by a monster while Star’s evil mother allowed it to happen. The court heard that numerous referrals were made to Bradford Council children’s services months in advance of Star’s murder, but they were not taken seriously—in fact, the case was closed. The Prime Minister will be aware that this is the latest in a long list of failings at Bradford Council children’s services, where political correctness appears to have been put before the welfare of children. I have no confidence in Bradford Council’s leadership to deliver children’s services. Since the death of Star, I am pleased that the Government have sent in a commissioner—

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. Sorry, but I am very bothered that we are going into sub judice, which applies till sentencing is finalised. It is very serious and I do not  want to cause a real problem. I would ask the Prime Minister to answer without giving any further details. I think we have gone a little bit too far into what the case is at the moment.

Boris Johnson: I am grateful for your direction, Mr Speaker. I just want to say that I think the whole House will once again be filled with incredulity at the cruelty of people who could perpetrate a child killing such as this, but also sadness and bewilderment that it could not have been prevented. As my hon. Friend knows, we will appoint a commissioner to assess the capability and capacity of the relevant council, Bradford, to improve on its handling, and they will report in January. That will also feed in to the report we have commissioned on the death of Arthur Labinjo-Hughes. I say to those who are responsible in the authorities concerned that we will not hesitate to remove service control if that is what is necessary to drive the improvements we need to see.

Lindsay Hoyle: That brings us to the end; we will go on to urgent questions. I wish everybody a wonderful Christmas, and let us have a peaceful new year.

School Openings: January 2022

Robert Halfon: To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will make a statement on preparations for school openings in January.

Alex Burghart: I am very grateful to you for granting this urgent question on a day when the Schools Minister is out of town, Mr Speaker.
The Government are committed to ensuring that schools open in January as normal. The classroom is the very best place for children’s and young people’s development, and we are incredibly grateful to teachers and all education staff for all they have done to maintain face-to-face learning. Protecting education continues to be our absolute priority.
The Government have taken action to help manage the omicron variant, and the Prime Minister has already announced that we are turbocharging our covid-19 booster programme to offer every adult in England a vaccine by the end of the year to protect people from it. We have set out clear plans for school openings in January, including on-site lateral flow testing for secondary school students on return; continued regular testing at home for the education and childcare sectors; and a comprehensive contingency framework to manage outbreaks.
As of 1 December, more than 95.2 million tests have been completed across all education settings, and the Government have made more than £100 million of funding available to education settings to support costs. Schools and education settings have a range of measures in place to manage covid and to reduce transmission, including regular testing, additional hygiene practices, increasing ventilation, and procedures for managing confirmed cases.
From Tuesday 14 December, a new national daily testing of covid contacts policy was introduced. That means that young people and fully vaccinated adults who are identified as a close contact of someone with covid may take an NHS rapid lateral flow test every day for seven days and continue to attend their setting as normal unless they have a positive result.
We also recommend that older students and staff wear face coverings in communal areas and we have supported education settings to improve ventilation. The Government committed to delivering 300,000 carbon dioxide monitors by the end of this term; we have already delivered more than 329,000, with more than 99% of eligible settings having received monitors.
Every child aged 12 and over is eligible to receive the vaccine. We encourage all children and parents to take up that offer as soon as possible, if they have not already. It is vital, though, that all of us, including parents, carers, teachers and everyone working in education, goes out as soon as they possibly can to get their booster jab to protect the NHS, our way of life and education.

Robert Halfon: Thank you for granting this urgent question, Mr Speaker.
Despite the heroic efforts of teachers and support staff in Harlow and around the country who have worked tirelessly to keep students learning, the four horsemen of the education apocalypse have been galloping towards our young people in the form of a widening attainment gap, an epidemic of mental health problems, a rise in safeguarding hazards and a loss of life chances. We know that the attainment gap between rich and poor students is getting worse, and that the number of children being referred to mental health support services has increased by 62%. We know the damage that school closures bring, and 100,000 ghost children are missing almost entirely from the school roll. Yesterday, the Department for Education released new figures showing that more than 230,000 children were not in school because of covid-related incidents.
The Government have stated that they want to keep schools open, but what is the plan in order to do so? What measures are being taken to ensure that, should education staff be required to isolate, there is a network of supply teachers ready to step in? Is additional funding being made available to provide adequate ventilation in schools?
The Health Secretary is right to say that we should protect the NHS, but why can the Department for Education not say that we have to protect our children’s futures? Why do we not have advertisements about that? What mental health support is being given to our young people affected by the pandemic? What assessment is being made of the impact of lost learning on students in critical exam years?
There is a nationwide campaign for an army of NHS volunteers, but not for education. Why is a similar army of retired teachers or Ofsted inspectors not being recruited to support schools struggling to cope with staffing requirements? Can we not have the same vision, the same passion and the same resource provision for the education service as we do for the national health service?
Despite the Government’s assurances, it seems to me that, sadly, we are moving towards de facto school closures. I urge Ministers to prove otherwise.

Alex Burghart: I thank my right hon. Friend, the Chair of the Select Committee on Education, for his question. I know how much the subject means to him, and I am sure he recognises how much it matters to everyone in the Department for Education. We are absolutely clear that the best place for schoolchildren is in school, that the best thing for schoolchildren is to have face-to-face teaching and that, as the Secretary of State said at the weekend, he will do everything in his power to ensure that that continues.
We have a range of work under way in response to this fast-moving situation. Currently, I believe that there are 14 hospitalisations from omicron and that the rate of the doubling of cases is about every two days. At the weekend, the Secretary of State was on “The Andrew Marr Show”, where he said that he thought that about a third of cases in London were omicron. That number is already now over 50%, so to deal with this we have set about four things: testing, vaccination, ventilation and hygiene. Those are the ways in which we will absolutely back schools to make sure that in-classroom teaching can continue. We are recommending that all secondary school pupils will be tested right at the start of next  term. We are offering a small amount of flexibility on the time at which schools can go back in order to make sure that this testing can take place, and we are offering additional funding to make sure that this testing is available. I reassure the House that schools have and will have all the testing facilities they require.
On vaccination, six out of 10 of those aged 16 and 17 have already been jabbed, and more than 80% of everybody in the population aged 12 and over has received at least two jabs. That remarkable achievement has been made possible by our world-leading vaccine procurement and roll-out. As I mentioned, 99% of schools have received the carbon dioxide monitor, and schools are running comprehensive and advanced hygiene programmes. The key to our success in the battle against omicron will be the booster programme. This is a national mission of the utmost importance and severity. The Government are throwing the kitchen sink at making sure that before schools get back all adults will have had the chance to have their booster. That is the way forward; it is how we maximise our chances of making sure that our children get the world-class education they deserve.

Stephen Morgan: First, let me thank school staff, governors, parents and pupils across the country for their dedication and hard work during a year of unrivalled difficulties. However, the Government’s complacency means that we are now in a race against time to protect children’s health and education as the omicron variant spreads. Yesterday’s absence figures showed that 235,000 children are now out of school because of covid, which is an increase of 13% in the past fortnight. An average of 175,000 children have been out of school every day this term. This ongoing disruption to education comes on top of pupils missing an average of 115 days of in-person school between March 2020 and July 2021. The Government have serious questions to answer about why further steps have not been taken to reduce the spread of covid among pupils.
We know that vaccination and ventilation are vital to these efforts, but Ministers are falling short on both. The Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies first highlighted the importance of ventilation in schools in May 2020, but 19 months on the Government have failed to act on its advice. This is literally a problem the Government could have fixed while the sun was shining, but instead their failure to get measures in place is pushing schools to open windows, despite plummeting temperatures and while school energy bills rocket. Therefore, will the Minister immediately publish interim findings of the Bradford pilot of air purifiers and work with all schools to implement recommendations from that?
On vaccinations, we find that nationally less than half of 12 to 15-year-olds have had a vaccine. Ministers missed their own target to offer everyone in that age group a jab by October, and they have not set a new one yet. Perhaps most concerningly, the weekly number of jabs administered to 12 to 15-years-olds has dropped by 80% since half term. Will the Minister commit to deliver a vaccine guarantee so that all young people can get their jab by the end of the Christmas holidays? Will he also set out what steps he will take to rapidly ramp up the roll-out? Will he adopt Labour’s calls for a clear, targeted communications campaign to parents on the benefits of the vaccination, access to pop-up and walk-in clinics, and the mobilisation of volunteers and retired  clinicians? Staff, children and parents are now entering their third school year of disruption. Time and time again, this Government’s failure to plan ahead has left children bearing the brunt of the pandemic. Ministers must stop treating them as an afterthought and act now to avoid chaos next term.

Alex Burghart: I join the hon. Gentleman in his remarks about schools and school staff. We understand that they have worked enormously hard to do the best for children in extremely difficult conditions over the past 18 months. It is important to recognise that the work that they have done throughout has meant that we are now in a position where we have good and improving vaccination rates, good ventilation, good hygiene and good testing in schools. As I made clear in my answer to my right hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon), that is the key recipe to ensure that schools are in the best possible position, but the national solution to the omicron variant must be—and can only be—boosters, which is why in the next few weeks we need as many people as possible to come forward and take up the Government’s invitation.
We are making an enormous effort to ensure that vaccine centres are available near people, that there are walk-ins, and that people can step forward and take the protection that they, their families and their communities need, and that will mean that we have the best chance for a normal school term in January.

Tim Loughton: I am reassured to hear the determination of my hon. Friend to keep schools open, but does he agree that the disgraceful campaign of intimidation waged by National Education Union managers to close down schools earlier this year wreaked huge chaos across schools that will take many years to overcome, including the one in six school-age children who now have mental health problems; the chaos caused to the examination system; the academic catch-up; and the problems from a lack of physical exercise? Will he welcome the measures being proposed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon), the Chair of the Select Committee, and will he agree that, given the extraordinarily heroic efforts of our headteachers and teachers through difficult circumstances, ultimately the decision on safety and keeping schools open should be left to individual heads?

Jonathan Gullis: Bousted should resign.

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. We do not need any extra comments, Mr Gullis. You were hoping to catch my eye and I was thinking about coming to you next, but you obviously do not want me to.

Alex Burghart: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton), the former Children’s Minister, for his remarks. We are absolutely determined to do everything that we can to keep schools open. My right hon. Friend the Member for Harlow asked how we are going to maintain the workforce. I remind the House that during the surge of the delta variant, the Department created the workforce fund, which enabled the vast majority of schools to stay open, even in the teeth of that variant. We still have the workforce fund, and intend to say more about it in the next few days.

Barry Sheerman: I urge the Minister to take very seriously the morale out there in schools. We spend a lot of time, quite rightly, thanking NHS staff as frontliners, but teachers and the whole school community are also wonderful, hard-working people, so let us look carefully to morale and to the health of our children, which is paramount. Will he also look at early years and nursery provision, which is essential to people who want to go to work and have their children looked after properly? Will he please talk to the people at the National Day Nurseries Association, which is based in Huddersfield, because they are the experts?

Alex Burghart: The hon. Gentleman obviously has enormous expertise in this field, as former Chair of the Education Committee. I reassure him that the Under-Secretary of State for Education, my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Will Quince), the Children’s Minister, is in regular contact with the group that he mentions. Education being open is vital to the national effort. It is education settings being open—particularly for key workers, as they were at all stages throughout the pandemic—that means that the NHS can function, that people who are seriously ill can get treatment, and that the rest of the economy, where possible, can keep functioning. I absolutely understand what the hon. Gentleman is saying.

Mark Harper: May I put on record my thanks to the headteachers, teachers and all the staff at schools in the Forest of Dean for the huge effort that they have made both during the period when they were closed and delivering remote learning, and since they have had children back at school?
Once again, there are rumours—only rumours at this point—that the Prime Minister is intending to hold another press conference today. Will the Minister confirm whether that is indeed the case, and, if it is, that there will be a statement in this House setting out whatever measures are to be announced?

Alex Burghart: I thank my right hon. Friend for his question. He is an experienced Member of this House and he will know that Under-Secretaries of State are not always informed of what is happening right at the very centre, but I am sure that the powers that be will have heard his question.

Steve Brine: The Prime Minister has been very clear that Christmas concerts and nativity plays should go ahead, the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care has said exactly that to me from the Dispatch Box, and we have heard what the Minister has said today, yet Zoom has never heard more “Silent Night” and we have state schools already closed for Christmas and teaching unions calling for a staged return in January. I have heard what the excellent Minister has said and it is very welcome, so I do not require the list again, but what are the Government actually going to do, legally, to see that their will is enforced and that schools are back, as they should be—as they need to be—in January? Where on earth are the Labour and Liberal Democrat MPs? What could be more important than this?

Alex Burghart: In answer to my hon. Friend’s second question, I think it is clear that they are off on their holidays. In answer to his first question, we absolutely  want and expect education settings to be open, we want and expect children to be taught in person, and we want and expect school life to go ahead.

Sarah Green: Our children cannot afford for schools to close again or to miss more face-to-face teaching through absence. As has been mentioned previously, evidence shows that ventilation equipment in schools reduces the airborne risk of coronavirus by up to 70%. Other countries have already rolled out ventilation equipment to their schools and are seeing the benefits. When can we expect the results of the Bradford pilot scheme to be published, and when can schools expect ventilation equipment to be delivered? It is needed now.

Alex Burghart: As the hon. Lady will have heard me say already, we take ventilation and the quality of air extremely seriously. That is why we have achieved our public commitment of delivering 300,000 carbon dioxide monitors over the autumn term; in fact, we have excelled on our target. We are absolutely clear that ventilation is one of the four pillars that will help us best maintain school in person.

Claire Coutinho: May I put on the record my thanks to the hard-working teachers and heads in East Surrey for keeping the schools open during the delta variant? During that time, one teacher told me that they were more worried about the fear that was spreading in children than they were fearful of the variant itself. I have never been more ashamed of the Labour party than in its inability to stand up to the unions when they were muddling the story of safety in schools. Will the Minister please reassure us that he will be able to try to maintain confidence in schools and keep them open? That is the best thing for the future of our children.

Alex Burghart: My hon. Friend raises an extremely important point. Like her, I have been extremely impressed at how calm a head the education settings I have visited and spoken to have managed to keep in the midst of a crisis, despite the quite unnecessary pressure that certain groups have put on them.

Jim Shannon: I thank the Minister for his positive answers. Does he agree that for some children, Christmas at home is not a time of joy, and that the mental health and wellbeing of pupils must be weighed as a concern? Will he outline what discussions have been had with the Northern Ireland Education Minister to share information in an attempt to see that every region of the United Kingdom implements the right strategy in terms of health and education?

Alex Burghart: I can reassure the hon. Gentleman that, at official level, we are in constant dialogue with our friends and partners in Northern Ireland. There is a great deal that we can learn from each other and that we continue to learn from each other.

Mark Jenkinson: This week, for the second year in a row, I am delivering nearly 7,000 Christmas books—one to every primary school child in my constituency—to spread a bit of cheer after another difficult year. Will my hon. Friend take this opportunity to remind the militant unions that a majority of teachers and heads share his desire to keep all  children in school at all costs? Will he commit again to doing all he can to support the hard-working teachers and heads across the Workington constituency who share the desire to keep their schools open in the face of pressure from a loud minority?

Alex Burghart: I have always considered my hon. Friend to be a spreader of good cheer, and I now have a wonderful image of him traipsing around his constituency with a large sack upon his back. I can only echo his remarks; the headteachers and school leaders I meet share his and the Department’s determination to do the best for their children.

Flick Drummond: May I take this opportunity to thank all the teachers and school staff in Meon Valley for their amazing work during the pandemic? May I ask my hon. Friend to give schools and headteachers plenty of warning—hopefully not at weekends—if there are to be any changes to the system?

Alex Burghart: I fully hear what my hon. Friend says. As of this morning, all our guidance is up to date. We maintain a very good conversation with school leaders in what is obviously a very fast-moving situation.

Lia Nici: I would like my hon. Friend to thank all the school teams and college teams in and around Great Grimsby, as well as the employers who are offering placements to our students.
An issue that we have in Great Grimsby is literacy and numeracy. Our primary schools have told me that their in-school additional tutoring is making the biggest difference, so we need to make sure that parents understand that it is important for their children to be at school and not to be afraid. Will my hon. Friend make sure that we now get the message out to parents: “School is safe, and school is the best thing for your children”?

Alex Burghart: I am very happy to echo my hon. Friend’s remarks about Great Grimsby. I look forward to telling education leaders myself when I visit in the new year. Absolutely, the message goes out: we know what is best for children and we are trying our very best to make sure that it happens.

Ben Everitt: Testing for school pupils has become something of a regular occurrence for households across the country, including my own. Can my hon. Friend confirm that covid-19 tests will continue to be distributed to schools and pupils so that we can monitor the incidence of outbreaks of the virus?

Alex Burghart: Absolutely. I am very happy to confirm that schools have and will have the testing capacity that they need.

Tom Hunt: It was fantastic to be out last week in primary schools in Ipswich handing out certificates for Christmas card entries. The artistic future of Ipswich is looking very bright indeed.
When I visit schools in Ipswich, learning loss is often a concern but not the main concern, which is the impact of lack of socialisation and the mental health implications.   Will the Minister confirm that if there is a big struggle with teaching unions that do not put enough value on children’s education, he will stand up not just for learning, but for the mental health and social development of all our young people?

Alex Burghart: Absolutely. We have been very keen to make sure that we invest in the mental health of children and young people, following what has been an extremely difficult 18 months. I am very happy to join my hon. Friend in praising the primary school children of Ipswich and their artistic prowess.

Miriam Cates: School closures have been a welfare catastrophe for millions of vulnerable children. During the pandemic, there has been a 77% increase in self-generated sexual images of children online, and referrals have doubled for paediatric eating disorders. Some 2.2 million children in England live in households affected by addiction and abuse, yet in the first lockdown just 6% of vulnerable children attended school. What will my hon. Friend do, and what can we do as parliamentarians to support him, to make sure that this tragedy never again happens to our vulnerable children?

Alex Burghart: My hon. Friend is a very powerful advocate for the cause that she raises. Those are shocking statistics.
We kept education settings open throughout the pandemic for the most vulnerable children. Where pupils who are self-isolating are within our definition of “vulnerable”, it is very important that we have systems in place to keep in contact with them, particularly if they have a social worker.

Bob Blackman: I congratulate headteachers and staff across Harrow, who have kept schools open during very difficult and challenging times. I am a very strong supporter of the vaccine programme and testing, but many of our children will be mixing over Christmas with people from across the country and may inadvertently and regrettably catch covid. Will my hon. Friend and the Department issue guidance telling children and families that they should be tested before they go to school, not when they get to school? Inadvertently, they could spread covid once they are in school being tested.

Alex Burghart: We encourage everybody to test regularly. To do our very best to ensure the next term starts well, we will be encouraging all secondary school pupils to be tested right at the start of term and we are introducing a degree of flexibility on start dates to achieve that. Schools are now very experienced in making sure they take precautions so that infection is not spread when children are together and preparing to be tested.

Laura Trott: I welcome the Minister’s words about keeping educational settings open as a priority, but will he go further and guarantee that primary schools will be kept open? We know that children that young cannot learn properly online, and that the damage to their education and wellbeing is immense. It is unthinkable that we will not keep them open to all children, whatever happens.

Alex Burghart: I thank my hon. Friend for her remarks. She is a very powerful advocate for the position she has just set out. I repeat what the Secretary of State said at the weekend: he is doing everything in his power to ensure that schools will stay open.

Siobhan Baillie: I would like to put on record my thanks to Stroud schools and the fact that I have registered with the Department concerns about additional costs arising from tackling covid. On the rumours of lockdowns or further lockdowns, I have spoken to many Stroud parents throughout the pandemic who are incredibly worried about the welfare of their children due to school closures. With the cruel and devastating deaths of young Arthur and Star keeping us up at night, many Stroud parents are worried not only about their own children but about hidden children, and teachers feel the same. Will my hon. Friend confirm that in all discussions with unions, scientific advisers and medical advisers, he refers constantly to the fact that we now know that lockdowns hide evil and damage children’s health?

Alex Burghart: I know my hon. Friend understands these issues extremely well. We very much want to keep schools open. We think schools are the best place for children in the midst of a pandemic, particularly vulnerable children who are in care or on the edge of care. We are determined that social work contact should continue, so that we can ensure those children will be protected.

Jonathan Gullis: I take this opportunity to thank teachers, lecturers, support staff and other educationalists across Stoke-on-Trent North, Kidsgrove and Talke for their fantastic efforts. I spent eight and a half wonderful years working as a secondary school teacher in London and Birmingham, and it is absolutely essential that schools are kept open. I do not want to hear from the Minister that we are going to do everything we can; I want to hear simply that they will stay open. More than ever, secondary school teachers want assurances that exam plans for summer 2022 will go ahead as normal. The Labour party is stuck in the vice grip of the National Union of Teachers, so we need to ensure that we do not listen to them but to teachers who know that exams are always the best way forward.

Alex Burghart: It is always a pleasure to answer questions from my hon. Friend, who is an extraordinarily  passionate advocate for children and education. He will have heard what I said. We want schools to stay open. We want exams to go ahead. We are working to that end.

Mark Harper: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. You heard me ask the Minister, in the urgent question, whether there were plans for a press conference today. No. 10 has now confirmed that the Prime Minister and the chief medical officer will be carrying out a press conference. No. 10 has briefed the media that new information and the latest data on omicron will be provided. I understand that the chief medical officer was scheduled to give evidence to a Select Committee this afternoon. That has now been postponed until tomorrow, so it looks like the new information, instead of being provided first to Members, will be provided to the media. Have you had any notice of an intention of a Minister to come to the House at the end of business today to update Members on the booster roll-out and the latest information about omicron so that we can ask questions on behalf of our constituents?

Lindsay Hoyle: Nobody has been to see me about a statement, but of course my office door is open, and I hope that those on the Front Bench will be listening to me say that I would welcome that statement. Once again, I say that Members of Parliament are elected to this House to hear things in this Chamber, not on the media. I hope the message goes back that new information should be shared with Members of Parliament. I would like to believe that somebody will be knocking on my door very shortly to say, “Can we have a statement later?”, and of course I would welcome that statement.

Sarah Green: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. The hon. Member for Winchester (Steve Brine) asked where were the Lib Dem MPs at this very important urgent question. I may be new to the House, but I point out that I am a Liberal Democrat and I asked my question right after the hon. Gentleman, who is no longer in his place. I am sure it was an oversight and that all can be forgiven, but can I please ask that he withdraws that comment for the record?

Lindsay Hoyle: The good news is that you have corrected the record, and yes, we can all see that you are here.

Asylum Seeker Accommodation:  RAF Manston

Roger Gale: (Urgent Question):  To ask the Minister to tell the House of his proposals to accommodate asylum seekers at the former RAF Manston barracks.

Tom Pursglove: As the House knows, there has been an unacceptable rise in the number of small boat crossings. It is absolutely right that the Government take all necessary steps in response to what is an ongoing challenge. A new triage facility is being established on part of the Ministry of Defence site at Manston in Kent. It will provide safe and secure accommodation for migrants while the Government carry out the necessary checks. Used alongside existing reception arrangements at the port of Dover, the site will enable the processing of large numbers of arrivals simultaneously. We take the welfare of migrants seriously and will ensure that they receive basic welfare provisions, including hot food, fresh clothing, and, where necessary, medical care.
In the new year, we intend to expand activity at the Manston site to conduct more detailed security and initial asylum screening in parallel before people are dispersed. Arrivals will be expected to remain on-site for a maximum of five days while the security and initial asylum processing checks are undertaken, until they leave to go into further, appropriate accommodation. Our aim is to make our processes more efficient and to reduce pressure on the overall asylum system.
However, this is only one part of a wider process. The Government remain committed to bringing an end to dangerous and unnecessary small boat crossings. We are overhauling our asylum system to ensure that people-smugglers cannot profit from human misery. The tragic deaths in the channel last month underlined in horrific fashion just how dangerous these journeys are. Our new plan for immigration will reform the system and build one that is fair on those who play by the rules and firm on those who do not. It will reduce pull factors by making it more difficult for migrants to remain here where they have no lawful right to do so. The British people want to see change, and the Government are firmly committed to delivering that change.

Roger Gale: The former RAF barracks at Manston is about to be released by the Ministry of Defence and is required, once the site has been cleared, by local people for housing. It lies adjacent to Manston airport, which we hope to see reopened in the near future as an airfield once the long-awaited development consent order has been determined. This is not an appropriate site for the proposed purpose.
On Friday 10 December, I received an email from the executive officer of Kent Wing informing me that 2433 Air Training Unit had been given until today, 15 December, to vacate premises at the former RAF barracks and fire training school
“in order that an Immigration Centre could be established there”.
This was described as
“not for us to debate; it is an order to us”.
That was the first that I had heard of this Home Office-instigated proposal. There had been no consultation with me, as the Member of Parliament, with the leader of the county council, with the leader of Thanet District Council, or, I believe, with the county constabulary. I spoke to the Minister of State on that day and was promised a full briefing, with civil servants present.
The leader of Thanet District Council was called by Home Office officials at 5 pm on Monday, two days ago, and the leader of Kent County Council at 6 pm. Again, there was no consultation, and to date, Kent’s senior health officer has not been consulted or even informed officially that the Home Office, which has known of the developing cross-channel people trafficking issue for months, and of the developing crisis for weeks, was proposing to create a screening and processing centre at the unsuitable Manston Road site. Neither were proposals for a phase 2 transfer and triage facility from Tug Haven to Manston discussed; nor was a further proposal for a phase 3 expansion of facilities, to handle the still-to-be-determined number of migrants over an unspecified length of time, consulted on. All we were told by the civil servant leading the project who, as I understand, was working from home and has not visited the site, is that the Home Office is establishing a processing centre—not might be, is establishing—before Christmas.
When I met the Minister of State yesterday, I asked that a stop be put on the project and that proper consultation be facilitated, with a degree of courtesy that from the Home Office has been signally lacking to date. From reports of phone calls made last night, it is clear that officials have ignored that request and are blundering on—hence my request for an urgent question, Mr Speaker. It appears to me that the Home Secretary and Minister of State have been blindsided by officials into yet another knee-jerk reaction to a problem that ought to have been foreseen, and should have been avoided.
As it stands, the current dog-whistle proposal appears to transfer arrivals securely from Tug Haven to Manston barracks, where they will be accommodated, in mid-winter, in marquees, and detained securely while they are being processed. There is no indication as to how the site will accommodate those human beings, how they will be made secure, or what facilities will be made available, other than statutory on-the-site medical services. These are real people who have been subjected to great misery as a result of circumstances that we may discuss on another occasion. As a result of the lack of foresight and preparation, it is now proposed that people should be processed under largely unsuitable conditions, simply to satisfy a perceived demand that can, and should, be met by other means.
I have identified at least one clean, comfortable, and secure operational vessel that can, if commissioned, meet the immediate and longer term need, and I am advised that others are available. I would be grateful if the Minister would now instruct the team to do as I have already requested, put this unacceptable and unworkable proposal on hold, and properly, thoroughly, and swiftly examine the viable alternatives. Perhaps while doing so he could conduct the consultations that ought to have been held weeks ago. Trying to railroad a bad idea through the shelter of the Christmas recess can only have unfortunate and undesirable consequences for the communities and people affected, and for the Government.

Lindsay Hoyle: I gave some leeway to the right hon. Member for North Thanet, because I knew how important it was—in case people are wondering why I allowed the urgent question to go beyond its normal time.

Tom Pursglove: I thank my right hon. Friend for his tone in raising this issue on behalf of his constituents, and I fully appreciate the sensitivities he has expressed. I know, not least because he chaired the Nationality and Borders Bill Committee, that he understands and appreciates the pressures that the Department and Government are currently experiencing in relation to the small boat challenge.
I appreciate that the current pressures are real and challenging for our staff on the ground, and we must be responsive to the issues and challenges they face in going about their work. Of course, this issue has come about directly in response to the high numbers of crossings we have seen, which have been so vivid, and about which I know people across our country are concerned. Safety is very much at the forefront of our consideration, not just for the arrivals, but for our staff in the way I have alluded.
My right hon. Friend has raised a number of points that I want to pick up in responding. It is fair to say that consultation is ongoing—I make the point again that we are having to respond to these challenges at pace—including with local authorities, the NHS, him as the constituency Member of Parliament and the police, for example. We have had to move at pace, and the most recent inspection confirms how important it is that we take the steps we are proposing. As I say, my officials spoke about our plans with local political leaders, their officials and the local police at the first opportunity, and they will continue to do so. I welcome their constructive engagement so far.
My right hon. Friend asked when activities at this facility will start. We are planning to have potential overspill facilities in place over the next few days. In terms of volumes, we will keep that under review. At the moment, we are assessing the capacity and capabilities of the site and what is appropriate to it, and there will of course be times when the site is empty, when crossings are not happening. He asked who will go there. This is an overspill site for Tug Haven and initial processing. We would expect men, women and children to go there as necessary, but for a maximum of five days. We will manage unaccompanied asylum-seeking children separately under the existing arrangements with social services.
My right hon. Friend asked whether this is a permanent arrangement. We will keep our use of the Manston site under review, but we expect to continue to use it for some time. He has suggested some alternatives. If he would like to share those details with me, I would be happy to take that away and look at what he is suggesting, but I go back to the key point in all of this, which is that the Government’s objective is to end these channel crossings. That is the objective we continue to work towards, and it is what the British people expect. We have a comprehensive plan of action—I have set it out many times in this House—for how we achieve that. Of course, getting that right means that there would not then be the need for facilities such as the one he has concerns about.

Holly Lynch: I have listened carefully to what the Minister has had to say, and I thank the right hon. Member for North Thanet (Sir Roger Gale) for having secured this important urgent question. Tomorrow will be a year to the day that the right hon. Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes) secured an urgent question in this Chamber on the Government’s rule changes, which gave the Home Office the powers to deem asylum claims inadmissible. We described the proposals as unworkable then. Here we are, a year on, and people are becoming trapped in our asylum system by the Home Office, having had their claims deemed inadmissible, but without any functioning agreements in place to move anyone through and out of the system. The Minister has said that 4,561 notices of intent have been served, yet only five people have been returned.
The Minister has said that this site is an attempt to improve the efficiency of the system, so can he explain to the House why the Government passed these inadmissibility rules when the consequences are that thousands of people have endured longer stays in the asylum system than necessary? That is to the detriment of a person’s wellbeing and makes no sense for the Home Office at all. The initial asylum decisions taken by the Home Office have dropped from 28,623 in 2015 to 14,758 now, which is contributing to the backlog. Some 64% of those waiting for a decision on their asylum claims are waiting longer than the six-month target, so the backlogs in processing times are crippling the system. I would be grateful if the Minister could explain why progress on the rates of decision making has collapsed.
The Minister says that RAF Manston barracks will be used more as a reception centre than long-term accommodation, but we know that public health and fire safety advice was ignored by the Home Office prior to Napier and Penally barracks opening as asylum accommodation. We have heard once again about how consultation with local agencies has sadly been absent.
Given what we know about the new variant, dormitory-style accommodation must be avoided if we are to protect those accommodated there, staff and the wider community. Can the Minister confirm whether RAF Manston barracks will have an advisory committee? Can he rule out that children will be held there, and can he provide assurances that this is a temporary measure?
Given that this Government have promised the Afghan citizens resettlement scheme, why has the scheme still not been established, and why has eligibility for the Afghan relocations and assistance policy scheme been tightened overnight? I would be incredibly grateful for some insight on that decision.
Finally, in September 2020, the Home Office was by the inspectorate about the inadequate facilities at Tug Haven for dealing with vulnerable people, especially children, who may have experienced dangerous journeys. What assurances can the Minister give us that Manston barracks would be a significant improvement on the current situation?

Tom Pursglove: I am very grateful to the shadow Minister for her various questions and of course the assiduous way in which she always goes about these matters. We spent quite a lot of time together debating the Nationality and Borders Bill in the Committee that  considered it in great detail. The point that I would make initially is that what we are talking about here is a very considerable number of arrivals. Of course, it is right and proper that we have appropriate and safe facilities in place to process those arrivals in a manner that is fitting and of course has safety at the forefront. We believe that the steps I have set out today are necessary to achieve that and to make sure that we have the capacity, with the ultimate aim of course of stopping these crossings from happening in the first place, which is something that we are continuing to work towards.
On the point about inadmissibility, as I have explained several times in different settings in this House, that is very much about our future policy and where we are hoping to get to. We believe very strongly, and I know that Opposition Members have different views on this, that people should seek asylum or claim asylum in the first safe country that they reach. That is of course the quickest route to safety. The shadow Minister will also know that we are continuing to look at what more we can do on the issue of returns along those inadmissibility lines, and upholding that very long established principle under successive Governments of both sides that people should claim asylum in the first safe country that they reach. Those negotiations and discussions are ongoing, as she would expect.
On asylum processing, of course one thing that I very much want to see, as do my ministerial colleagues, is cases decided more quickly. We want to provide sanctuary to those who need it as quickly as possible and to return those with no right to be here without needless delays. That is what our Nationality and Borders Bill and the new plan for immigration are all about. We are getting on: that Bill is passing through the House, and we will operationalise the measures in it as quickly as possible on Royal Assent. I think that is what the British people want to see. It is the right and responsible thing to do, and that underpins the entirety of our policy.
On Napier specifically, we have been responsive. Again, we have set out many times the improvements that have been made to that site. It is right that, for example, when the inspectorates come in, look at these sites and offer recommendations, those are considered properly and thoroughly, and acted on as appropriate. That is why we respond formally to those reports and set out the steps that we intend to take to address any of the issues raised.
On the point about Afghanistan, what I will do—if I may, given that today we are debating the issue of Manston specifically and the triaging facility—is ask my hon. Friend the Minister for Afghan Resettlement to provide an update to the shadow Minister.

John Redwood: How many hotels have now been contracted to deal with illegal migrants and with asylum seekers under Government contract, what is the current year’s budget for all this work and will the Minister promise that, in future, MPs in any constituency where new facilities are going to be procured will be consulted first?

Tom Pursglove: I am very grateful to my right hon. Friend for his question. Of course, as is standard practice, budgets are agreed formally with the Treasury in the usual way. I think it is fair to say that, as Ministers, our door is always open to talk to colleagues about concerns they have about particular circumstances in their own  constituencies. I think it is fair to say we are facing very considerable pressures at the moment in this space and it is important that all parts of the country do their bit to help to address some of these challenges. I would encourage local authorities that are not currently assisting with that work to look at how they can help, particularly along the lines of the dispersal model. But to be clear to the House, we want to get away from this reliance on hotel accommodation. We are working towards that objective and that is the right approach.

Chris Stephens: I congratulate the right hon. Member for North Thanet (Sir Roger Gale) on securing this urgent question. His point about the lack of consultation with himself, the local authority and health services is frankly appalling. I want to ask the Minister a number of questions. A cross-party report on the all-party parliamentary group on immigration detention called on the Government to end this military-style accommodation for asylum seekers, which it described as “fundamentally unsuitable” for survivors of war, torture or serious violence. So why is the Home Office ignoring these warnings from parliamentary colleagues? The Home Office previously ignored warnings on the use of Napier barracks from the Red Cross and Public Health England, with the inevitable result of a covid outbreak among those being held there. With the pandemic now entering another dangerous phase, will the Government commit to listening to the experts this time and to following their own health guidance?
Can the Minister confirm that parts of the Manston estate are currently condemned as a result of asbestos being found on the site? We know that there has been very little consultation—in fact, none at all—with the local authority and other key partners such as the health services. Will he tell us what consultations have taken place with the non-governmental organisations that work with torture survivors and victims of trafficking and other trauma? Or is there, as with Napier, a lack of proper planning processes? Finally, the Minister mentioned illegal migrants. When will the Department commit to ending this dog-whistle language? There is no such thing as an illegal migrant. Seeking asylum is not illegal, so when will the Government put an end to this language and to pandering to the lowest common denominator?

Tom Pursglove: I am grateful to the hon. Member for his questions. I do not consider that we are ignoring the concerns that are raised. As I have set out to the House, we have consistently been responsive to the reports of the inspectors, for example, and when they make recommendations, we consider them and act appropriately. He will recognise that there is a need for accommodation, and that the system is under acute pressure at the moment, given the number of arrivals. He will also recognise that we are seeking to reform the system. We are bringing forward the Nationality and Borders Bill, which is all about driving reform, processing cases more quickly, providing sanctuary to those who require it and removing those with no right to be here. That is a firm but fair system, and one that I would argue is right.
In response to the hon. Member’s point about there being no consultation with local partners, that is simply not true. As I have described to the House, that engagement is ongoing. He also asked about areas of the site having asbestos. We will of course act entirely appropriately  with safety at the forefront. I have made that point several times. Assessments are ongoing in various parts of the site, and it is right that we always act with safety at the forefront of our minds.

Bob Blackman: We should always remember that it is criminal gangs that are ruthlessly exploiting vulnerable people and bringing them to this country. Can the Minister clarify some issues relating to the site? Will it be used for new arrivals straight after they arrive? He said earlier that they would be there for no more than five days. Following the questions from my right hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet (Sir Roger Gale), there was a question about how they would be accommodated. Will they be in marquees, in tents, or in barracks accommodation with proper facilities during this, the coldest period of the year?

Tom Pursglove: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that the criminal gangs responsible for these crossings are evil, and I would like to think that the whole House would share in that message. As I have said, the intention is for this to be an overspill site for Tug Haven. Work is ongoing on site to assess which areas are appropriate to be used for accommodation, and there will of course be appropriate accommodation on site that is safe and that meets our legal obligations.

Jeremy Corbyn: The people who are going to be taken into this facility are desperate people arriving from Afghanistan, Kurdistan and many other places, and suffering from the most intense trauma. Everything that the Minister has said, and everything that the right hon. Member for North Thanet (Sir Roger Gale) asked, sounds awfully like a repeat of the appalling behaviour of the Home Office over Napier barracks. Can the Minister assure us that people are not going to be kept there at all, and that some better, more suitable accommodation will be found—at the end of the five days, where are they supposed to go? Has the Minister consulted? Many local people in Kent are welcoming asylum seekers and are prepared to support them. Has the Minister discussed the matter with local non-governmental organisations, or is this just some immediate reaction to get through a problem for the moment, never mind the appalling conditions that these poor desperate people are going to be forced into?

Tom Pursglove: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his various questions. This is an overspill site for Tug Haven. At the end of the period spent there in the processing phase, people would enter the dispersal and initial accommodation phase, and would of course be appropriately accommodated.
I have said this to the right hon. Gentleman before, but I will say it again: no one has cause to get into a small boat in order to seek safety. People should seek asylum in the first safe country that they reach.

Scott Benton: Several hundred asylum seekers are currently being housed in a completely inappropriate location in central Blackpool. The Minister will be aware of my concerns about this placement. Does he agree with the people of Blackpool that the plans for an offshore processing centre for asylum seekers simply cannot come soon enough?

Tom Pursglove: As my hon. Friend knows, in the Nationality and Borders Bill we reserve the right to enter into an offshore processing arrangement. I hear the point that he makes on behalf of his constituents about how strongly they feel about this, and of course we want to operationalise the Bill as quickly as possible.

Christine Jardine: We have heard a great deal about the pressure on accommodation, but surely that pressure could be relieved if the Home Office were to act more quickly and fairly in processing claims. Will the Minister tell us what action has been taken to ensure that that can happen?

Tom Pursglove: Perhaps the hon. Lady could help us in Edinburgh: perhaps her assistance would enable the dispersal process to take place more readily. I know that the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster), would be keen to have that conversation with her. Let me also reiterate that our firm objective is to increase and improve the processing of cases in the way that I have described.

Jonathan Gullis: Stoke-on-Trent is the fifth largest contributor to the asylum dispersal scheme. We have heard from my hon. Friend about the strain on the system caused by hundreds of thousands of illegal economic migrants crossing the English channel from France. Does he agree that the pressure on the system could be relieved if more local authorities, such as Labour-run Islington Council or the 31 out of 33 Scottish authorities, stepped up and played their part in the national effort?

Tom Pursglove: My hon. Friend has been a passionate advocate for the work that his local authority has been doing in this regard. I want to place on record my thanks and appreciation to them for everything they have been doing. I think it fair to say that many local authorities around the country could learn a lot from Stoke.

Jim Shannon: I thank the Minister for his answers, and I commend the right hon. Member for North Thanet (Sir Roger Gale) for his spirited account of the situation at RAF Manston. As others have said, this is about more than secure accommodation. Can the Minister outline further what measures are in place to deliver education and training for the refugees and their families at Manston and across the United Kingdom so that they can assimilate well into local communities?

Tom Pursglove: As this is about short-term processing, we would not necessarily expect facilities of that kind on site, but of course they will be a key consideration when it comes to dispersal and initial accommodation.

Tom Hunt: I must say I have some sympathy with the need to act quickly bearing in mind the scale of the problem, so I do not really have concerns about the lack of consultation. Does the Minister agree with me, though, that if individuals are concerned about the quality of the accommodation, the simple answer to that is to not come over here illegally and actually apply for asylum in the safe European country in which they are present? They are not from Afghanistan; they are in France. It is hardly surprising that the  Opposition opposes this—I know you would like them all to be in four and five-star hotels; you have made that quite clear—but will the Minister promise me that offshore processing is being looked into seriously?

Rosie Winterton: Order. The hon. Gentleman must not refer across the Chamber to the shadow Minister as “you”. I am sure the hon. Gentleman knows by now that when he uses that phraseology he is referring to the Chair, so I ask him to observe the conventions. I call the Minister.

Tom Pursglove: I thank my hon. Friend for his question. The point I make in response is that nobody should be getting in a small boat to find safety—nobody has any cause to do that. That is why we are so committed to safe and legal routes, for the very reasons he outlines: when people come through such routes, we can provide proper accommodation, support and services to support those individuals.

Owen Thompson: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. In response to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South West (Chris Stephens), the Minister suggested that there was a good level of consultation with local authorities in Scotland. That is not consistent with the view from the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, which, I understand, is told after asylum seekers are accommodated—there is no engagement in advance. I wonder whether the Minister might reflect on the comments he made.

Rosie Winterton: I thank the hon. Gentleman for the point of order, which is more like a continuation of the urgent question. [Interruption.] I see that the Minister wishes to make a response.

Tom Pursglove: For the benefit of the House, I would just confirm that I was talking about Kent.

Rosie Winterton: I hope that is helpful. As I say, this is really not a matter for the Chair, but I hope we have had some clarification.

Ajax Noise and Vibration Review

Jeremy Quin: With permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to make a statement to update the House on Ajax, which is an important capability and a vital step-change in the way the British Army will operate on the future battlefield. It will provide ground-mounted reconnaissance, allowing the Army to understand the battlefield in all weathers, 24 hours a day.
As part of our £41 billion investment in Army equipment and support over the next 10 years, this modernisation is critical to address future threats. This is a vital investment, and the Defence Secretary and I have been deeply concerned about progress on this troubled project, which has been running for over 11 years since its commencement in March 2010. That is why we have been thoroughly focused on the project, why I insisted earlier this year that no declaration of initial operating capability would be made without ministerial involvement and why we asked the permanent secretary to commission a report from the Ministry of Defence’s director of health, safety and environmental protection on the health and safety concerns raised by noise and vibration. I am today publishing that report, and placing a copy in the Library of the House and in the Vote Office.
Over the past 35 years, there have been some 13 formal reports on defence procurement; we know the foundations that can build success. Openness, good communication and collaboration within Defence and the ability to act as an informed and challenging customer are vital. This health and safety report has highlighted shortcomings that need to be addressed, not just in health and safety, but more broadly. The review finds serious failings in the processes followed. The result was that personnel worked on a vehicle that had the potential to cause harm. The review finds that the failure was complex and systemic; that a culture exists of not treating safety as equally important as cost and time in the acquisition process; and that, from a cultural perspective, the Army did not believe it was potentially causing harm to people, especially from vibration, as it was tacitly expected that soldiers can and should endure such issues.
As I informed the House on 18 October, we have contacted all personnel identified as having worked on Ajax. Forty declined to be assessed for hearing but I am pleased to report that the vast majority of the remainder have returned to duty with no health impact. As of 9 December, 17 individuals remain under specialist out-patient care for their hearing, some of whom are again expected to return to duty with no health impact. Eleven individuals have had long-term restrictions on noise exposure recommended, potentially requiring a limitation in their military duties. Seven of them had pre-existing hearing issues prior to working on Ajax, but four did not.
In addition, four individuals who worked on Ajax have been discharged on health grounds, in some cases for reasons wholly unrelated to hearing loss. Although we cannot yet establish a definitive causal link, it is possible that Ajax may have contributed to the current hearing loss in a small number of individuals. It remains the case that no individuals have had long-term restrictions or been discharged as a result of vibration. However,  assessment for both hand-transmitted and whole-body vibration takes time and requires specialist assessment, and these continue.
I will set out the key points from the review. General Dynamics UK is responsible for the design and build of the Ajax vehicles. The vehicles that it delivered for use in the trials had levels of noise and vibration that were higher than usually expected in tracked vehicles and have been proven to be above the statutory limit. That exposed our personnel to potential harm.
That exposure was not prevented by the Ministry of Defence due to a series of failures to act when concerns were raised by expert advisers and by soldiers operating in the vehicles. For example, an MOD safety notice in December 2018 said that design upgrades were required to reduce vibration, but this was not acted upon. MOD safety cases and safety management used GDUK calculations that were not independently assured, despite experts at the Defence Science and Technology Laboratory advising that the calculations should not be relied on.
A report from the Defence Safety Authority in May 2020 identifying some of these issues and entitled “Serious Safety Concerns on Ajax” was retracted and not pursued, either by the DSA or by the project team in Defence Equipment and Support. Multiple warnings from the DSTL and from the Armoured Trials and Development Unit, which was running the trials, were not actioned, even when the ATDU commanding officer questioned the approach as having the potential to expose soldiers to a known hazard, which he stated was not a defendable position.
Overall, the report makes 20 recommendations. The MOD accepts all those relating specifically to armoured vehicle procurements, the regulation of safety for land equipment and the broader approach to safety in defence. Recommendation 9 relates to avoiding the concurrent running of the demonstration and manufacture stages in future projects. That recommendation needs to be considered carefully to ensure that we capture the safety imperatives while not preventing sensible spiral development or, for example, the parallel construction of classes of warship. I will update the House on that, alongside recommendations 12 and 14, which also need consideration of how to best implement them, building on existing work on approvals and senior responsible owners.
I will also update the House on the project more broadly. We have a robust, firm price contract for the delivery of 589 vehicles at a cost of £5.5 billion. We are ensuring that we protect our commercial position under the contract and will not accept a vehicle that is not fit for purpose. It remains impossible to share with the House 100% confidence that the programme will succeed or, if it does, the timing of achieving full operating capability. However, we are working closely with General Dynamics on noise and vibration and it is showing great commitment to resolving these issues. This very advanced fighting vehicle project employs 4,100 in south Wales and across the UK. We all want it to succeed and deliver what the British Army requires.
The Millbrook trials to baseline the vehicle’s characteristics have completed and we expect to receive the conclusions shortly. In parallel, General Dynamics has been developing its theories and trialling design modifications to address vibration. We expect to receive  its analysis in the new year, following which we will, if appropriate, undertake thorough testing of its proposed modifications to satisfy ourselves on their efficacy.
Part of our analysis is also looking at the performance of the headset used in Ajax. Although the noise profile on Ajax is noticeably different from that of other armoured vehicles, following tests on in-service headsets we took in November a precautionary measure to limit temporarily the amount of time personnel operate while using them in other armoured fighting vehicles. Acoustic testing of our in-service headsets is under way at test facilities in the UK and overseas. We are also testing other headsets to establish whether they will meet our requirements and provide additional attenuation. Once this analysis is complete, we expect to be able to relax the temporary restrictions or implement appropriate mitigations. In the meantime, we remain able to maintain our operational commitments.
The work on Ajax has also highlighted the significant number of personnel across defence whose exposure to noise results in short or long-term restrictions to their military duties. I have therefore asked the MOD permanent secretary to look further at that issue to ensure that we are doing all we can to prevent avoidable hearing loss in our people.
In conclusion, the Ajax health and safety report makes for very difficult reading. It lays bare a deep malaise, which is cultural and results in systemic failures across our organisations. I am grateful to David King and his team for their work and grateful for the candour of many who contributed to the review. There are many working tirelessly to get Ajax back on track. We need to build on that candour and dedication and encourage all those involved in procurement programmes to speak up, identify problems and make clear where those responsible are failing. A culture in which individuals are encouraged not to elevate problems but only solutions through the chain of command may be admirable in other circumstances, but rarely in procurement. We need to support our people by resolving underlying cultural issues that risk making it harder to deliver the capabilities needed by our armed forces.
To take that forward, we are commissioning a senior legal figure to look more deeply at Ajax and to examine not just health and safety, but the cultural and process flaws that it has highlighted. We will leave no stone unturned to learn those lessons. I encourage people to participate in the further review and will ensure they have the space to do so. Of course, if the review uncovers evidence of gross misconduct, those concerned will be held to account, but the primary purpose of this inquiry is to ensure that we address significant cultural failings. The terms of reference will be agreed with the reviewer and I will make them available to the House.
In summary, while we should not forget that General Dynamics UK is responsible for delivering a safe and effective vehicle, it is clear from the report that the customs and practices of the Army, Defence Equipment & Support, Defence Digital and the wider MOD resulted in a culture that prevented issues from being addressed at an earlier point. We are committed to ensuring that measures are put in place to deliver these very complex programmes in a way that minimises the risk to our people while delivering the capability needed by the armed forces. I commend this statement to the House.

John Healey: I start by thanking the Minister for advance sight of his statement and for publishing this Ajax noise and vibration report. I pay tribute to his determination to get to the reasons why this Ajax procurement has gone so badly wrong and his commitment to updating the House openly on progress. This is vital to the UK’s warfighting capabilities and our frontline troops, so all sides of the House and beyond want to strengthen his hand in undertaking this work.
However, since the Minister commissioned this report, things have gone from bad to worse on Ajax. The Comptroller and Auditor General has confirmed to me that he has launched the urgent National Audit Office investigation into Ajax that I and the Defence Committee requested. The Public Accounts Committee has described the Ajax programme as a “catastrophe” and the MOD’s procurement system as “broken”.
This is a £5.5 billion programme that has been running for the past 10 years, has only delivered a couple of dozen vehicles and still has no definite date for completion. It is the biggest Defence procurement failure of the past decade. It is failing British taxpayers and failing British troops.
The first concern for any Minister or commander is rightly the safety of our own forces men and women, so this is an important report. It confirms that 17 individuals who worked on Ajax are still receiving specialist treatment for hearing loss, 11 have long-term limitations on their military duties and four have been medically discharged from service. What, if any, compensation have they received?
The Minister also refers to
“the significant number of personnel across defence whose exposure to noise results in short or long-term restrictions to their military duties.”
How many is that significant number, and when will the permanent secretary report on the wider problems?
More serious is what the Minister has described as the
“series of failures to act”
when concerns were raised about health and safety risks: the 2018 MOD safety notice that was not acted on, the 2020 Defence Safety Authority report that was retracted and the multiple warnings, including from the commanding officer in charge of the trials unit, that were not actioned. The Defence Secretary declared in this House last month that,
“it is really important…that we fundamentally learn the lessons and people carry the can for…their decisions.”—[Official Report, 25 November 2021; Vol. 704, c. 492.]
Has anyone been fired for the failings? Has anyone been demoted? I hesitate to ask this, but has anyone responsible been promoted since they worked on Ajax?
Fundamentally, there is a Defence Secretary-shaped hole in this report. There is no mention of his role or his misjudgments in this Ajax disaster. When exactly did the Defence Secretary first know about the flaws in Ajax? What action did he take then to investigate and fix the problems? The Ajax vibration problem has been known in the MOD since at least 2018, so why, when the Defence Secretary published his defence White Paper this year, did he double down on Ajax, scrapping Warrior  and scaling back Challenger at the same time? Finally, neither this report nor the MOD’s continuing Millbrook trials were ready last month, so why did the Defence Secretary press ahead to confirm in “Future Soldier” that
“capabilities will be built around…Ajax”,
with other systems?
It is deeply unsatisfactory that the action following this review is to launch another review. It is also deeply unsatisfactory that Ajax is still in limbo, beset by suspicions that it is simply too big to be allowed to fail. Will the Minister now answer the remaining fundamental questions? What are the causes of the noise and vibration problems? Will the Defence Secretary scrap or stick with Ajax? What is the MOD’s cost for the additional trials and testing? What contingency plans are in place for the Army to have full reconnaissance and force-protection capabilities while Ajax is delayed or, indeed, deleted? Has the Minister discussed with the Welsh Government a plan to support jobs if Ajax is cancelled? What impact does this continuing delay to decisions on Ajax have on the Army’s ability to deploy the planned strike brigade?
The Defence Secretary’s rapid further cuts in Army numbers is directly linked to more advanced technology based on Ajax. Will Ministers now halt their Army cuts, at least until they have fixed this fundamentally failing procurement?

Jeremy Quin: I thank the shadow Secretary of State for welcoming the transparency that this report represents from the Ministry of Defence. He is absolutely right that its commissioning and publication have sent shock waves through Defence. That is valuable and important. Everyone needs to be aware of the important imperatives—people need to answer for them and ensure that they are on track—and, even by commissioning and publishing this report, we have sent an important and salutary message, as well as learning a lot of detailed facts. He was generous in that respect, but he was most ungenerous and wrong regarding the Secretary of State.
As set out in the report, we first knew of this issue in November 2020. Ministers acted promptly. I am concerned that at the time it was described to me as a late discovery item, and that was mentioned in the report, and a culture of optimism bias continued. That is why I insisted that no IOC would be declared without ministerial involvement. That is why we were, and have been, very focused on ensuring that we got to grips with this programme, which we have, and on ensuring that we had this report not only commissioned, but published.
The report has laid bare a host of very difficult issues inside Defence, across a whole series of organisations. That is what the Defence Secretary and I are absolutely focused on getting to grips with, and what we are doing. The purpose of the report was not to apportion blame, but to discover the facts. That is the normal process in industrial companies where there are issues of concern—to establish the facts and to set out recommendations. That has been done.
We want to have a second report—I have referred to that previously in the House—to dig deeper and to make certain that the lessons are learned and that the recommendations are appropriate. As I have said, if there are examples of gross misconduct, they will be acted on.
What the report revealed, however, is a deep cultural malaise: across Defence, horizontally, parts of it are not speaking to each other as they should be on a programme of this nature. Concerns are not being elevated as they should be, vertically up through the system. That is a problem, a failing, and it needs to be addressed. If we want to have proper procurement, we cannot have a culture in which people take the view that they want to hear only solutions and not problems. It is necessary to have a proper airing of concerns and for them to be taken up and dealt with.
The shadow Secretary of State raised a number of other points. A large number of hulls have been delivered to Merthyr and are being worked on. Of course, there has been a succession of capability drops in the project, so hulls will have to be enhanced and improved over time.
The right hon. Gentleman may believe that things have got worse. That is not my experience. On the contrary, we are in a far, far better position than we were last year and in a far better position than we were six months ago. Detailed work has been undertaken and conclusions from Millbrook will be with us before Christmas. GD has growing confidence in the design modifications that it believes can be effected. I will have no position on them until we have tested them, gone through them and made certain that they work, that they are efficacious and that they give us the kick that we require. There is a lot of work still to be done on headsets, but I have seen the benefit of having a full-time focused SRO and with ministerial focus on the project, driving it forward. We are in a far better place to take decisions on Ajax than we were. The project is in a healthier state than a year ago, as should be the case. It is an important capability that we need for our operational requirements, and we will continue the hard work to ensure that it is delivered.

Rosie Winterton: I call the Chair of the Defence Committee.

Tobias Ellwood: I commend the focus that the Minister brings to the situation, which is very refreshing indeed. However, he speaks of a troubled programme with cultural and systematic failures and of commissioning a senior legal figure to investigate. The project is a complete mess. Indeed, our whole land warfare programme is now operationally suboptimal as we cut our tank numbers, all our armoured fighting vehicles and our recce vehicles and introduce Boxer—a wheeled vehicle but with no substantial firepower—and Ajax. As we have discussed, it is a £5 billion project that was expected in 2017, but only a dozen vehicles have arrived, and people are being sent to hospital because of the vibration problems. The MOD is fortunate that the west—sadly, this includes the UK—is now so risk-averse as we would struggle today to send appropriate hardware into Ukraine in a move that, in my view, would deter Putin from invading.
The real scandal is the cover-up and dishonesty that led to the integrated review hiding those very problems with Ajax that the Minister spoke about so that it would not be axed. I spoke to a number of four-star generals, and nobody expected it to survive the integrated review. It makes it difficult for me to call for defence spending to be increased to 3% to improve our defence posture  because of the threats coming over the horizon when money is spent so poorly. I call on him to set a date in February when, if the procurement issues are not resolved, the project will finally be closed down.

Jeremy Quin: I thank the Chair of the Defence Committee for his comments. Last year, his Committee produced a helpful report on armoured vehicles that made absolutely clear the requirement to invest more in that part of our defence. The Committee was right to do that and to highlight those concerns, and it should be reassured by the investment that we are putting into Boxer and Challenger. A £41 billion programme of investment in equipment and support is going into the Army in the next 10 years, and £8 billion of that is new. We differ, however, on the requirement for a recce vehicle of this nature. We need such a 24-hour vehicle that can operate in all weathers and all conditions to provide that critical ground reconnaissance, and that is what we are procuring via Ajax.
We must make certain that we have all the facts, because decisions are best made with all the facts. The root cause analysis on noise and vibration is in process, and we are doing that at pace. I am determined to drive answers on that. My right hon. Friend is right to ask searching questions, but, as I said, we are in a far better position than we were six months ago to understand what is going on. I hope that, early next year, we will know far more and be able to say, “Yes, this is a capacity that we can bring in and will work.” I am hopeful that we will get there, but it depends on the analysis that we do.

Rosie Winterton: I call the SNP spokesperson.

Dave Doogan: I thank the Minister for advance sight of his statement. This is a sorry tale, but more importantly, it is a strategically very important equipment failure that leaves a very serious capability gap. I, for one, am clear that the Minister’s statement does not satisfactorily address the issues.
The health, safety and environmental protection review gets to the heart of the failures. It provides helpful definition and sources for the catastrophic failures—numerous as they are—in the management control issues, which have come to define the literally incredible £5.5 billion defence procurement fiasco. I am sure that others will detail the chronic operational consequences of those failures for the ability of UK forces to fight and defend, so I will concentrate on technical details.
I said in this Chamber some months ago that the problem was
“not…MTU V8 diesels or the Renk transmissions”—[Official Report, 9 September 2021; Vol. 700, c. 494],
which were tried and tested assets in other platforms. So it has come to pass.
The review highlights the failure of the
“Track, suspension and running gear, in particular the tension and sprocket design/track interface”,
which are unique to Ajax. The engine, good as it is, is a proven engine poorly mounted in a badly designed vehicle. We also learned today that, as the review sets out, there were
“Quality issues associated with…inconsistent routing of cabling, lack of…weld quality…insecure components”.
That does not sound to me like a £6 million vehicle. The shoddy design and appalling quality management represent engineering management from a truly different era.
There is no shortage of concerns about the programme, but one of them is about the tone of the report: “This was all very difficult, and we’ve taken a look back to see where things went wrong.” Two elements are missing from that rather lightweight mea culpa routine: who is carrying the can, and what is the future of the programme? Can the Minister identify who will take responsibility for this almost limitless failure?
Currently, GD UK management are clearly letting down the workers at Merthyr and Oakdale. What discussions has the Minister had with GD US about their future? When will he make a final decision on the future of the programme?

Jeremy Quin: I am impressed with the hon. Gentleman’s attention to detail, but technical issues are not really within the scope of the health and safety report. Mr King would not claim to be the person who can put the House’s mind at rest on technical issues, but there is a huge amount of ongoing work on the matter. The Millbrook trials have concluded, as I say, and we are waiting for the conclusions to arrive before Christmas, and they will be analysed. That will get to the heart of the issues with root cause analysis of noise and vibration, which I know the hon. Gentleman will look forward to with eager anticipation. I will update the House on what the answers turn out to be; I would rather not prejudge that technical analysis.
The hon. Gentleman refers to General Dynamics. One of the positives in the programme since the issues came to light is that we have had a complete transformation in the relationship with General Dynamics, which has been taken up at a very senior level: I speak to the global chief executive, and she has been in direct communication with the head of DE&S. That has helped to drive real performance through General Dynamics, all the way through the system. We are seeing a complete transformation in how it views the programme, in its determination to succeed and in its willingness to embrace the problems, which are clear. It has its own theories about them and is developing design mitigations and design resolutions. We have yet to see whether or not they can absolutely succeed; clearly we will wish to test that independently.

Rosie Winterton: I call John Spellar—[Interruption]—Sir John Redwood.

John Redwood: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Minister says that there is a robust fixed-price contract, which is great news. Is he guaranteeing to the House that the very considerable remedial costs will not fall to taxpayers in any way?

Jeremy Quin: To confuse the right hon. Member for Warley (John Spellar) with my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (John Redwood) is not a mistake that I would dare to make, Madam Deputy Speaker.
My right hon. Friend is right: this is a £5.5 billion firm-priced contract. I am very clear that we have a contract that says that 589 vehicles will be delivered that will meet our requirements for a price of £5.5 billion. That contract is very, very clear. I see no reason why this  House or the taxpayer should pay more money to General Dynamics to produce 589 vehicles, when we have a contract for it to produce 589 vehicles to our requirements for £5.5 billion.

John Spellar: The Minister is to be congratulated on honestly identifying departmental failings. We all welcome that. It therefore seems almost churlish to criticise, but we have to, because the report skirts the core issue. Its conclusion admits that the vehicle
“is not fit for purpose”,
but nowhere that I can see does it state the deadline for deciding whether the project can ever succeed; if it cannot, whether the Department has to terminate the contract; and if so, what contingency plans it has. Or will the project just limp on, burning cash and putting our troops at risk with a dangerous capability gap?

Jeremy Quin: The right hon. Gentleman raises good questions, but I hope that I can reassure him in part. The conclusion does say that the vehicle is not fit for purpose. Of course it is not fit for purpose now, because anything that does not meet our requirements is not fit for purpose. We cannot put personnel at risk, so absolutely it is not a vehicle that we can take on now, and we are not prepared to. We will only take into service a vehicle that actually works for our purposes and meets our requirements.
There is work to be done, but the decision point on whether that can be achieved with this vehicle is not now. A huge amount of work is being done. The time to take those decisions is after the root cause analysis has been concluded. As I said, GD has its own theories and has done its own work, and it believes that it has design modifications that could well fit the bill, but I am not going to take a decision on that until we have examined them and it is more confident of their grounds.

Andrew Murrison: The Ajax programme wins the competition, from a very long list, to be the poster boy of defence procurement disasters. My admiration for my hon. Friend the Minister and the Secretary of State for Defence cannot disguise the fact that the report is truly shocking. It points towards an institution that does not bake in human factors in the design of our kit and appears to ignore health and safety, to the great detriment of the men and women of our armed forces, including my constituents. It is not good enough.
What is my hon. Friend doing to ensure that people are truly held to account for this? If we have to go to a plan B in the new year, what contingency does he have for mounting stand-off radar, for example, on Wildcat and Watchkeeper, for rolling out the capability on our Boxer and Jackal fleets, and for using unmanned aerial vehicles? Otherwise, thanks to this tin can on tracks, we are going to have a walloping great hole in our defence capability.

Jeremy Quin: There are two halves to my right hon. Friend’s question. Given his background, I would expect nothing less from him than to be truly shocked by what this report reveals, and so am I. I was horrified when I read the report for the first time, and I am still horrified now. There were clearly flaws deep in the heart of defence, and people were not thinking through the consequences of actions and their implications for some  of our personnel. I think a lot of that was due to failures by one person to speak to another, a lack of communication horizontally, and a failure to elevate problems or for them to be heard properly as they went up the chain of command. But none of this is excusable, and it is outrageous that we have ended up in this situation. We are deeply shocked by what the report reveals.
As I say, there is an ongoing process, but the key thing is to understand what has gone wrong. My right hon. Friend has referred to this particular procurement among others. I am afraid to say that I suspect a similar tale could be told about many procurements of the past. The fact is that on this procurement, we commissioned and published a report and, as I said, it sent shockwaves through the organisations, with people asking themselves, “Have I been doing this right? Am I doing this appropriately?” That is the way to start to implement a change in culture.
I can confirm that we are absolutely in a position to meet our operational requirements. We will always have fall-back positions. My right hon. Friend mentioned Watchkeeper. As he will recognise, there are huge benefits in having ground-mounted reconnaissance, and Ajax can provide a useful tool. We are committed to making certain that it works, but if it would not, for any reason, there will be alternatives to be brought forward.

Kevan Jones: I thank the Minister for his tenaciousness in providing the report. The opening paragraph of the conclusion states:
“Nothing in this Review detracts from the fact that GDUK has designed and built what MOD maintains is thus far a vehicle which is not fit for purpose and does not meet the contracted specification.”
In effect, we have a vehicle that does not work and has damaged our people, and GDUK has burnt something like £4 billion of UK taxpayers’ money so far. What the report does not actually outline, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Warley (John Spellar) said, is a timescale for when decisions have to be taken. When will the decision on whether we are going to can this project altogether be taken? If it is canned, may I pick up on an issue raised by the right hon. Member for Wokingham (John Redwood), which is the exposure of the taxpayer? There is a big difference between GDUK and GD globally. Is the global company legally liable for the liabilities of the programme?

Jeremy Quin: Those are good questions from the right hon. Gentleman. The key point from the quote he read out is the words “thus far”. Our focus with GD is getting a vehicle that meets the requirements and specifications of the Army, and which we can bring into service. As I say, GD has done a lot of work over the past six months. There are design modifications which it believes can help significantly. We are yet to test that—we are yet to hear definitive reports and we are yet to see its analysis—but progress is being made. So, first of all, we are not writing off Ajax, far from it. My hope is that it can still come into service as an absolute first-in-class vehicle. The capabilities are extraordinary if we can ensure that what are in many cases Newtonian problems of noise and vibration can be solved.
The right hon. Gentleman is right that £3.165 billion has so far been paid under the contract to GD. As I said to my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (John Redwood), this is a £5.5 billion contract. It is clear under the contract that we have 589 vehicles plus other things that will come through as a result of it. There is a parent guarantee in place between GDUK, the subsidiary, and the parent company.

Rachel Hopkins: Yet again, complacency when it comes to health and safety sees ordinary working people pay the price. Given that service personnel have been medically downgraded and some discharged due to their exposure to the noise and vibrations of Ajax, what measures will be put in place to protect their livelihoods and careers?

Jeremy Quin: I thank the hon. Lady. The passion with which she addresses that point is at the heart of why we undertook the report. I have to be slightly careful about what I say. Four individuals have been discharged and 11 downgraded. There is no definitive causal link established with Ajax, but it is certainly possible that Ajax was a contributory factor to hearing loss. Either way, it is deeply concerning.
The one thing I would say to reassure the hon. Lady is that I am absolutely confident that the same issues could not arise again. The reason I say that with such confidence is that I have seen the safety panels that have been created and the work they now do. There is no longer a situation where the left hand does not know what the right hand is doing. There is a single repository for knowledge. We have learned, I am pleased to say, from a situation in which all valid information raising difficult questions was spread in different parts of our organisation, and was not being brought forward and focused. I think I can speak with confidence to say that exactly the same problems could not, I believe, re-emerge, but there is more work to do in terms of culture to ensure that that is deeply embedded.

Gerald Jones: I thank the Minister for his statement. These are indeed very serious concerns being discussed today and, as other Members have said, they need to be addressed urgently. Alongside that, the committed and loyal staff at General Dynamics in my constituency are very concerned and worried about the uncertainty of not knowing what the future holds. I appreciate what the Minister said, but can I press him to give further details on the timescale for the outcome of the review, and a further commitment to ensure that staff, trade unions and the company are fully involved in the discussions, to ensure that the workforce at Merthyr Tydfil are kept in the loop as much as they possibly can be?

Jeremy Quin: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question and for his input on this issue. He, like me, knows Merthyr. I visited the factory and the people working there. It is a great set-up and they are very proud of what they do. As I said in my statement, we should not forget that there are many people working tirelessly to deliver Ajax for the British Army. They are very proud of what they are doing and are bringing all their skills to bear to ensure we get that kit and get it as soon as we can. To be clear, there is no review into General Dynamics. We are working with General Dynamics  and we intend to bring this vehicle forward. I cannot give a 100% guarantee, because one never can on a defence procurement programme, but we are a long way down the road on this programme—as we should be, given the number of years that it has taken to get us this far. We have invested heavily in it. It has a great capability. We will continue to invest in it. We will continue to work with GD, which is showing great commitment. I sincerely hope that during the course of next year we will be able to give dates on initial operating capability, full operating capacity and the like. I am looking at this with optimism but with my eyes wide open.

Postmasters with Overturned Convictions: Settlement Funds

Rosie Winterton: Before this statement, I wish to make a short statement about the sub judice resolution. Mr Speaker has been advised that there are active legal proceedings in the Court of Appeal in respect of the quashing of convictions of postmasters that relied on evidence from the Post Office Horizon IT system. Mr Speaker is exercising the discretion given to the Chair in respect of the resolution on matters sub judice to allow full reference to those proceedings as they concern issues of national importance.

Paul Scully: With permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will make a statement on the latest steps that the Government are taking to ensure that swift and fair compensation is made available to postmasters whose Horizon-related convictions are quashed.
The House is very well aware of the terrible impact felt by the many postmasters affected by issues with the Post Office’s Horizon IT system. These distressing consequences have been widely documented both in the courts, in the 2019 group litigation order judgments, and in the more recent Court of Appeal judgments, as well as in the media. I have met postmasters personally to hear how their lives and the lives of their families have been affected by these events. No one who has heard these stories could fail to be moved by the impact that these events have had on individual postmasters’ lives and their fight for justice over a number of years. I pay tribute to colleagues on both sides of the House who have supported postmasters in their efforts to expose the truth and see justice done.
Today I would like to take the opportunity to update the House on the latest steps the Government are taking to ensure that fair compensation is paid to postmasters with convictions that have been quashed due to Horizon evidence being essential to their prosecution. In the first instance, we worked with the Post Office to deliver interim payments of up to £100,000 for each eligible postmaster. I informed the House of the Government’s decision to provide funding for these interim payments last July. Government funding was necessary because the Post Office does not have the necessary funds to deliver the appropriate compensation. That is why it turned to the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, as its 100% shareholder, for funding of these interim payments.
I am pleased to report to the House that the interim payments are progressing well. The Post Office has received 66 applications for interim payments. Of these, 62 offers have been made, and of those, 50 have been accepted and payments made. Payments made to date have all been for the maximum interim amount of £100,000. I am pleased that these interim payments have helped to deliver an early down payment on the compensation due to affected postmasters in advance of full and final compensation packages being agreed. But that is only the first step. It is right that the focus now shifts to the agreement of full and final settlements. That is why the Government have been working with the Post Office to agree funding to facilitate the Post  Office making final compensation payments to postmasters. As I announced in a written ministerial statement to the House yesterday, the Government have now agreed to provide funding for that purpose. We are working with the Post Office to enable the final settlement negotiations to begin as soon as possible.
To be clear, the Post Office is not proposing a new compensation scheme to deliver full and final settlements. The Post Office is instead proposing to follow a process of alternative dispute resolution in which it will aim to agree an appropriate level of compensation with each postmaster, recognising the individual circumstances of each case. The Government support the Post Office in its aim of reaching fair settlements with postmasters via alternative dispute resolution, as we believe that this will lead to speedier delivery of compensation for postmasters.
I am not in a position to give significant detail today about this process, as the final detailed approach to these negotiations will need to be discussed and agreed between Post Office Ltd and individual postmasters and their representatives. I am sure that colleagues will agree that it is important that the Post Office listens to postmasters’ views and that these are taken into account in how these negotiations proceed.
While it will be for the Post Office to negotiate settlements directly with claimants and their representatives, the Government will work closely with the Post Office to ensure that fair compensation is delivered. Given the impacts on so many individual lives, it is right that the Government stand behind the Post Office and provide this funding to ensure that fair compensation can be made to individuals who were wrongly prosecuted and convicted on the basis of unreliable Horizon evidence. While compensation cannot change what is past, it can provide a degree of recompense for past wrongs.
In addition to providing compensation, it is important that we learn lessons so that something similar can never happen again. That is why the Government have set up the Post Office Horizon IT inquiry and put it on a statutory footing to ensure that it has all the powers it needs to investigate what happened, establish the facts and make recommendations for the future. The inquiry has recently set out the full list of issues that it is investigating, and core participants have started to share key documents with the chair, Sir Wyn Williams, and his team. We will co-operate fully with the inquiry to ensure that the facts of what happened are established and lessons learned. I commend this statement to the House.

Jonathan Reynolds: I thank the Minister for his statement, and for providing advance sight of it before he came to the Chamber.
I believe we are in unanimous agreement across the House that the Horizon scandal has been a shocking injustice. In fact, I believe it is no exaggeration to say that it is one of the greatest scandals of modern times. It is a scandal that has blighted the lives of hundreds of sub-postmasters, but also their families and those who have worked with them. I join the Minister in paying tribute to those postmasters who have been relentless in their quest for justice, as well as all those in this House,  including my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central (Chi Onwurah), and, in the other place, Lord Arbuthnot, for their work in this area.
Given that forensic accountants first went in to discover the truth in 2010, the Minister will appreciate how frustrating it has been for many people to see how protracted this fight for justice has been. Innocent hard-working people wrongly spending time behind bars is simply unconscionable, but to add insult to injustice, the Post Office then attempted to cover up its mistakes by shredding documents and then attempting to bury those seeking justice in endless legal battles. There is, frankly, no condemnation strong enough for such behaviour.
The Government are right to make this announcement. However, I think we must be clear that the Government are not paying this compensation out of the goodness of their heart, but quite simply because there is no other choice to take, given the unambiguous position and the finding in the Court of Appeal. Although we welcome the announcement, I want to press the Government on some key matters that I think need resolving to ensure that all those affected receive the compensation they deserve and that nothing like this can ever happen again.
First, will the Minister confirm that compensation is for everyone, including those who had civil as opposed to criminal processes against them? Surely the Government accept that justice must be available to all affected, not just those who faced criminal prosecution. Further, how many settlements does the Minister envisage being made in totality?
Secondly, will the Minister confirm that the compensation will not affect the Post Office’s core funding, day-to-day operations or viability in any way, given the vital role it performs in all our communities?
Thirdly, the Government must acknowledge that all those involved in the initial mistakes and subsequent failures must also bear some responsibility, so will the Minister confirm that none of those involved have been rewarded with top senior jobs elsewhere?
Fourthly, as the Minister referenced the Post Office Horizon IT inquiry, what information can he give the House on the likely timescales that we can expect for further information as to its findings and report?
The shattering reality of this scandal will be felt in families and communities for years to come. The Government have made and taken the right step today, but I believe it will be one of many if we are ever to make amends for this most insidious injustice.

Paul Scully: I welcome the hon. Gentleman to his place. He is right that we are not making the funding available from the goodness of our heart; we are doing so because it is the right thing to do. I do not think anybody—as well as being a Government Minister, I am a constituency MP and a human being—can read these cases and listen to those involved, and fail to be moved by what has happened over the last 20 years. The hon. Gentleman has asked a number of questions, so let me try to go through those.
A number of schemes are available, including the historical shortfall scheme, which the Post Office made public and wrote to a number of people about. About 2,500 people came forward, which was more than the Post Office thought would. That scheme is going through  its process at the moment, and the Government are ensuring that it is pushed forward as quickly as possible. The Post Office has also written to 640 postmasters whose prosecution is believed to have had Horizon as a primary part; we will see what happens in terms of people coming back from that. The Court of Appeal will work through those appeals and the Post Office will go through the compensation process.
On the 555 who pioneered this work, I have said in my conversations with them and in correspondence that the settlement was full and final. However, I recognise what they have done and that none of this would have been possible without their work, and I will continue to work with them to see what we can do.
On the core funding that the hon. Gentleman talked about, this money is from government—it is from taxpayers—and it is separate. We have not paid for the Post Office’s litigation costs. Compensation will not come from core funding.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the time of the inquiry, and I would expect Sir Wyn Williams to give an update on that as soon as possible. Clearly, we want it to go through as quickly as possible, but we want to make sure it is thorough. There is a lot of documentation and complexity after two decades, as the hon. Gentleman can imagine.

Andrew Mitchell: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his statement. Will he reflect on the fact that this extraordinary miscarriage of justice has been made worse by the fact that the Post Office could use public money to overwhelm these honest and decent postmasters and postmistresses, so that their legitimate recompense is all, or at least partly, gobbled up by massive legal fees? On behalf of the Government, the Minister will want to reflect on why it has taken so long for them to acknowledge and accept what Members on both sides of the House have been calling for, for years and years—none more so than our former colleague the right hon. Lord Arbuthnot. Will the Minister say a little more about what will be done to hold to account those who so shamefully led the Post Office, and so grievously let down the honest men and women who worked for them?

Paul Scully: I thank my right hon. Friend. As I said, the 555 sub-postmasters who were part of the High Court case performed a massive public service by exposing the wrongdoings within the Post Office, and I recognise the deep frustration at the fact that because they agreed that the settlement with the Post Office would be a full and final one, they do not qualify for these compensation schemes. I have met some of those people and, as I said, I will continue to work on what more we can do.
On the people who may be found liable, it is important that Sir Wyn Williams does his work, in an independent inquiry. I may have my own views, but it is not right for me, from this place, to be directing in one way or in one shape or form. I am hoping that he will get his work done quickly and as thoroughly as possible.

Anum Qaisar: I thank the Minister for advance sight of his statement. I begin by paying tribute to all those hard-working people who have been fighting for justice. I welcome the announcement from the Minister, but we must be clear that the Department will ensure that losses made by the Post Office as a  result of former postmasters’ class action over the Horizon accounting software will not affect decisions on postmaster pay. I welcome his comments on that. The Horizon case has spanned decades, under consecutive Labour, Liberal and Tory Ministers, and is a stain on the Post Office. Given the issue of postmaster remuneration, with postmasters on less than the minimum wage at times, repayments to postmasters must not, after benefiting shareholders, hurt the postmasters themselves.
We in the Scottish National party were at the forefront of calls for a statutory judge-led inquiry, and Scots postmasters have also subsequently called for an inquiry. The Post Office attempted to appeal its loss in the first trial, which covered the contractual relationship between the Post Office and sub-postmasters. Judge Fraser found that there was a culture of secrecy and confidentiality generally in the Post Office, but particularly in respect of the Horizon accounting and retail system, which sub-postmasters used to run branches. This scandal has been widely reported for more than a decade. It is hard to understand how, in a company entirely held by the BEIS Secretary, this was allowed to continue for so long, and how the Post Office justified refusing to give information on those they were prosecuting in disclosure for fear that it would help the defence. What steps have Ministers from this Administration or previous Administrations taken to question the continuation of these prosecutions? What support will be given to those who continue this campaign?
Hundreds of postmasters running their local community businesses have been affected by this scandal. Many have lost their businesses. There must be full compensation, but can the Minister assure the House that the costs will be paid entirely by the UK Government, so that this is not used as another excuse to make cuts impacting postmasters, who have had to deal with this issue for years? Lastly, can the Minister confirm that all those responsible for the multitude of failings will be held to account?

Paul Scully: I fully expect the first and third of the hon. Lady’s questions to be dealt with by the statutory inquiry led by Sir Wyn Williams. It is important that he has the space, without my breathing down his neck, to look at this independently and objectively. We can agree that this scandal needs to be righted, and it must never happen again. In terms of the costs, the point of this statement and my previous statement about interim payments is that the Government will be supporting the compensation schemes financially. It is important, given its social value, that the Post Office has a real future, but it will only have a future if we sort out the past.

Lucy Allan: I thank the Minister for his statement and for the work he has done in getting to this stage. I also thank the Prime Minister, who has been engaged in this as well. The people who orchestrated this miscarriage of justice have paid no price. A series of Ministers who came to this place, read out their script, looked the other way and did not ask any questions contributed to the suffering, too, and we should all acknowledge that. I do not include the current Minister in that category.
The 555 sub-postmasters who so bravely took on the Post Office through the group litigation, paid for Mr Justice Fraser’s judgment. Surely they should be allowed to be compensated on an equal footing, because it is they  who exposed the wrongdoing. We should be thanking them and ensuring that they are compensated equally. Does the Minister agree?

Paul Scully: What I have said is that everyone who has been wronged by this should have full and fair justice and full and fair compensation, and I absolutely acknowledge the role of the 555 in pioneering to get us to this position. I will continue to work to see what more we can do to work with the 555 to ensure that they are fully included in what I have just said about justice and compensation.

Kevan Jones: First, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Jonathan Reynolds) for wiping me out of the campaign, or not recognising my contribution to the campaign over the past few years. I first got involved in this campaign 10 years ago. My constituent Tom Brown was accused of stealing £84,000, which he paid back. After two years, the Post Office dropped the case having bankrupted the individual. He was one of the 555, and without them and the discovery that went along with that, the deceit, the cover-up and the downright lies would not have been exposed. He will now only get £20,000. The Minister has moved this on more than his predecessors, but these people need access to that justice. They only settled because the Post Office used £100 million of public money to force them to the negotiating table. They cannot be left high and dry; they were the people who got to the truth around this. They need fully compensating, even if they just get back what they paid back. In Tom’s case, that is £84,000 that the Post Office has that was never missing and is still in their coffers.

Paul Scully: I recognise the right hon. Gentleman’s work over the past 10 years and the conversations we have had on this. I just let him know that I very much hear exactly what he is saying. I totally empathise with what he is saying, and I will continue to work to that end.

John Redwood: I am grateful to the Minister for changing the policy. I have been a long-standing critic of past Governments and Ministers for not telling the Post Office to apologise and pay up, and I encourage him today to ensure that the Post Office apologises properly, and pays up quickly and generously.

Paul Scully: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. We will ensure that we lean into the Post Office to ensure that they deliver all compensation schemes quickly and equitably so that we can get this issue sorted out. The Post Office has acknowledged that it has done wrong, but the inquiry will detail the questions that it needs to answer over the next few months.

Andrew Gwynne: May I pay tribute to the fortitude and persistence of Della Ryan, the former sub-postmistress at Dukinfield? Sub-postmasters and mistresses were ostracised, persecuted and prosecuted by the state. They lost their businesses, their mental health and physical health deteriorated, and some lost relationships. Compensation is a drop in the ocean compared to the decade of hell that they have  been through, but how many people does the Minister expect to receive compensation? Some 555 took part in the litigation, but he said that only 66 had so far made applications for compensation. Why is there such a big gap?

Paul Scully: The 66 people who have applied are those who had been convicted. There is clearly a wider group who have lost money, as we heard earlier from the constituent of the right hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones). There are various compensation schemes for people who have had shortfalls and for those who have had convictions overturned—the 66 people I mentioned. The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne) is absolutely right that we need to acknowledge not just the financial losses—as bad as they are—but the impact on mental health, the strains, people’s ostracisation from communities, and, in some cases, the deaths.

Paul Howell: As a member of the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee, I have listened to some of the harrowing tales about what has gone on in this situation, and I am sure that the issue will come back to the Committee at a later point.
One of the biggest failings was the attitude of the Post Office throughout, including the culture of denial. Will the Minister assure us that the Post Office itself has been challenged to ensure that that culture changes and we do not see such a situation again? As has been said, the sooner that we can get payments to these people, the better. We cannot let it drag on forever; it must be as quick and prompt as possible.

Paul Scully: I look forward to coming to my hon. Friend’s Select Committee next month to discuss the issue further. The Post Office has acknowledged that there have been wrongs in the past. There still remain issues that we discuss, but discussions can become too legalistic, when what the wronged postmasters actually want is more empathy; we will continue to work to that end. As my hon. Friend says, we want to ensure that we bring this matter to a swift and fair end.

Stephanie Peacock: Postmasters were criminalised by a culture that assumed that technology could not fail and workers were dishonest, so will the Minister tell us what steps the Government are taking to ensure that a scandal like this cannot happen again?

Paul Scully: These questions have been addressed not just in the original Justice Fraser report, which talked about the technology and the Horizon software; Sir Wyn Williams also has technical advisers to his independent inquiry to give him advice on the recommendations that he may want to make. We will indeed ensure that the software, which has been improved—there have been iterations since the last of the prosecutions—continues to improve. Indeed, I would expect it to be replaced at some point.

David Davis: The Horizon scandal obviously ruined many hundreds of lives, and the whole House will welcome the Government stepping in to meet the bill for compensation. However, the involvement of the Treasury in previous compensation schemes—Equitable Life comes to mind, but others too—has not always been wholly beneficial. Does my  hon. Friend agree that we must not allow arbitrary Treasury rules to limit the compensation paid to these postmasters, whose lives have often been completely ruined by the process—not simply the financial process, but the emotional and social damage?

Paul Scully: My right hon. Friend makes an important point. Clearly the Treasury has these rules to make sure it gets the best value for taxpayers’ money but, none the less, some things go beyond that. We have talked about the human cost now and umpteen times over the past 20 years, and it is important we get this right.

Gareth Thomas: On the watch of the former Post Office managing director Mr Alan Cook, now the very well-paid chair of Liverpool Victoria, I understand more than 160 sub-postmasters were prosecuted and almost 60 went to prison. I hope the Minister is able to say how many of those sub-postmasters will be compensated and whether Mr Cook has been invited to give evidence to Sir Wyn Williams’s inquiry.
Specifically, does the Minister share my view that, for that record as well as his ill-judged effort to demutualise LV=, there are questions as to whether Mr Cook is any longer a fit and proper person to run a major business?

Paul Scully: I will not comment on Alan Cook, if the hon. Gentleman does not mind, but I recognise what he says about this statement, previous statements and Liverpool Victoria. Such issues will be a matter for Sir Wyn’s inquiry.
On the convictions, the Post Office has received 66 claims for interim payments and has made 62 offers, of which 50 have been accepted. There are people with convictions that they believe to be unsafe, and the Post Office has contacted 640 people. The Criminal Cases Review Commission has said those people can go directly to the Court of Appeal to seek the overturning of those convictions. We will see how many come forward, but it is difficult for me to give an exact figure.

Jason McCartney: I have been contacted by a constituent who was among the 555 litigants in the civil proceedings brought against Post Office Ltd back in 2018-19. Of course, as we have heard, those litigants are excluded from the current compensation schemes. What redress, support and compensation does the Minister think my constituent and the other original litigants actually deserve?

Paul Scully: I have said that the majority of them are pioneers, and I need to do more work with them. I say “the majority” because some of the 555 were convicted themselves and will potentially have unsafe convictions, so they will be eligible for the interim payment of £100,000 and will move on to the wider compensation that we are discussing today.

Aaron Bell: The Horizon scandal is one of the worst we have seen, and the wider Government—not just the Post Office—particularly need to learn the lessons on how to treat IT evidence. I welcome the statement and the approval of these funds, but does the Minister agree that the Post Office must now make significant cultural and organisational changes to repair the relationship with postmasters and to make sure that such a situation can never be repeated?

Paul Scully: I appreciate my hon. Friend’s words and, yes, the Post Office must do that, and it is. Nick Read, the chief executive, has come a long way to give the Post Office that future by resetting the relationship with postmasters and sub-postmasters. There is clearly more to do, but we will best provide that future by giving sub-postmasters the confidence and trust they need by righting the wrongs of the past.

Mark Pawsey: In a Select Committee evidence session in 2019 we heard from postmasters affected by the Horizon debacle, and we heard harrowing accounts of small family enterprises—often a husband and wife—working through the night to go through the books to find losses that did not exist because the computer system did not work. I welcome the interim compensation payments that the Minister has announced today. Will he say a bit more about the Government’s role? In their response to the Committee’s report, the Government acknowledged their own responsibility
“to have visibility of and challenge Post Office Ltd’s major operational and strategic decisions to ensure the sustainability of the network is maintained and that good corporate governance and financial stewardship practices are upheld.”
On that basis, does he believe the Government should have grasped the situation earlier and acted more decisively? What improvements are being made to make certain that postmasters are never again placed in this position?

Paul Scully: First, I believe we now have robust monitoring not just of the compensation schemes but of the future relationship with the Post Office and postmasters. That is exactly what Sir Wyn Williams’s inquiry is there to find out—not just the Post Office’s role, but the Government’s role. If we have fallen short of expectations, I expect to put my hands up and say we got it wrong.

Duncan Baker: As a former postmaster—I think probably the only one in the House—I really welcome this statement. It ought to be placed on the record that the Minister has done more than anyone else in his position to doggedly pursue this issue, and many, many people out there who are affected will be very grateful for this news.
I want to touch on two aspects. On the £100,000 that has been paid to those who have had their convictions quashed, will there be a cap on the amount paid out as compensation? Can he give any further reassurance on when the full and final settlements will be made?

Paul Scully: I appreciate my hon. Friend’s kind words. The £100,000 has gone out as interim compensation. The full and final compensation will not be capped but will be worked out on an individual basis, because everybody is an individual and we have heard so many different examples of that.
As for people in different types of compensation schemes, we want to get this done as quickly as possible. I hope and expect that the historical shortfall scheme will be done by the end of next year. I will continue to work with everybody on this matter, because it is so important. I know that they want this sorted out tomorrow; there are complications, but people continue to suffer and I will do everything I can. My new year’s resolution—I will make it early—is that I will get this sorted out as soon as I can.

Jonathan Reynolds: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Rosie Winterton: As long as it is related to the previous statement.

Jonathan Reynolds: It is. My hon. Friend for North Durham—

Kevan Jones: Right honourable Friend.

Jonathan Reynolds: My right hon. Friend—it has been a busy week—did, of course, play a major role in the postmasters’ campaign. He was quite right to object to my failure to mention him, and I would like to apologise to him for that.

Rosie Winterton: That is not entirely a point of order or a matter for the Chair, but the hon. Gentleman has put his thanks and his apology on the record.

Speaker’s Statement

Lindsay Hoyle: I would like to announce the result of today’s ballot to elect the new Chair of the Home Affairs Committee. Three hundred and fifteen votes were cast with no spoilt ballot papers. The counting went for two rounds. There were 286 valid votes in the second round, excluding the ballot papers where the preferences had been exhausted. The quota to be reached was therefore 144 votes, and Dame Diana Johnson was elected Chair with 154 votes. She will take up her post immediately, and I would like to congratulate her. The result of the count under the alternative vote system will be made available as soon as possible in the Vote Office and will be published online—congratulations, Dame Diana Johnson.

Child Criminal Exploitation

Motion for leave to bring in a Bill (Standing Order No. 23)
2.58 pm

Lyn Brown: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make involvement in child criminal exploitation an aggravating factor in sentencing for drug supply, drug production, drug importation and money laundering offences; to make being a victim of child criminal exploitation a mitigating factor in sentencing for such offences; to establish reviews of sentencing guidelines in relation to the prevention of child criminal exploitation and criminal liability in relation to child criminal exploitation for organised criminal offenders; to amend the Modern Slavery Act 2015 to include a statutory definition of child criminal exploitation; to create a register of child criminal exploitation offenders; to place duties on public bodies to make plans to prevent, and collaborate in preventing, child criminal exploitation; to make provision about the reporting of the scale of child criminal exploitation and the inclusion of such exploitation in child, domestic, and offensive weapons homicide reviews; to require criminal justice agencies to publish information on their responses to child criminal exploitation; to make provision about the training of professionals in responding to child criminal exploitation; to make provision about the content and national oversight of local serious violence strategies in relation to child criminal exploitation; and for connected purposes.
In Newham, we have experienced dreadful damage to our communities done by those who have criminally exploited our children. Between January 2017 and March 2018, we lost no less than nine young lives in West Ham alone. Many of those murders related to the use of children by drug gangs, colloquially known as “county lines”. Organised crime has always done harm, especially in impoverished communities, but this is a fresh horror, as this business model is relatively new. The exploitation of children is not inevitable if we have a strategy to stop it now, and stop it for good.
Isaac Donkoh groomed two 14-year-old and two 16-year-old boys until they were willing to help to kidnap and torture another 16-year-old child in 2018. He recorded that brutality on his phone. That child abuser got 12 years and will be out in 2024, but the horror of that crime did not stop there. Two of the children he groomed were responsible for murdering Santino Dymiter just one year later. They are now serving life sentences, but the person actually responsible for destroying all these lives is Isaac Donkoh, and he and his wider drug-dealing network, sadly, are getting off lightly.
I ask hon. Members to imagine what it is like to be caught up in this as a child, like one of my constituents who was groomed by his neighbour. Three days before Christmas, he did not come home. He called mum the next night, frantic, whispering into his phone, telling her some men had him and he did not know where he was or what he could do. He was frightened for his life and he just wanted his mum. As that child, we gain an understanding that those who gave us gifts and respect now have us trapped—but how do we get out? These older men are brutal, they have real power over us, and we have heard terrible stories of what happens to those who speak to the police.
The truth is that often there is no support to get out. Frankly, even when I am involved and asking for help for families personally, the support is not quick enough or good enough to save a child, to move them and their  family out of harm’s way. Local GPs tell me they have children presenting to them with post-traumatic stress disorder because of what they have seen. Dozens of families are grieving children torn away from them, murdered or turned into murderers.
From West Ham, that death toll includes David Gomoh and Sami Sidhom, both targeted at random. Ahmed Deen-Jah was murdered and his younger brother Junior murdered four years later. Fares Maatou and CJ Davis were just 14 years old when they were murdered, and let us also remember Jaden Moody, 14 years old, the constituent of my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy). There are too many dead.
Those exploiting our children are doing it repeatedly. It is a cheap way of making loads of money. So what is being done to ensure the risk is tracked and children protected? How will we prevent Isaac Donkoh from abusing children again? I know there are slavery and trafficking prevention orders available, but I want the Government to look at creating a register of criminal child exploiters, taking this risk as seriously as that of other child abuse perpetrators, because these people who abuse children for profit are frankly the lowest of the low.
However, we know that registers will not be enough. More than anything, we need criminal laws that work to destroy the business model of county lines. The police are working hard locally and the response, with the National County Lines Coordination Centre, has improved massively since I first raised these issues four years ago, but the business model continues to flourish and children are dying. Our response is simply not at the level needed to wipe out this form of child abuse.
The Met has told me that it has had 10 convictions to date, since the Modern Slavery Act 2015 was implemented five and a half years ago. I asked the Government how many convictions for modern slavery offences there have been nationally, but they do not know. They have not known answers to many questions I have asked. Moreover, the 10-year drugs strategy launched last week barely even mentioned the criminal exploitation of children.
We need a commitment and a strategy to end the abuse of children through the drugs trade completely within the next few years. To do that, we need all public agencies joined up, we need information, we need resources, and we need to change the law. We need dedicated offences for modern slavery, and they have to do the job. What about where it is someone’s role to groom children to be criminally exploited by others? Currently it can be hard to fit that into the framework of existing offences, and we should deal with that.
We need to understand that this is about the business model that incentivises drug gangs to exploit children again and again across the country. When drug offenders are sentenced, child exploitation must be an aggravating factor and carry a really big penalty. It has to become too costly for the exploiters, the groomers and the gang leaders to use children in that way, or to tolerate it from those they work with. We need to destroy the economic model of this crime.
We have to go further. Organised drug crimes are complex, and there are often many layers and, sometimes, little proof of a direct link of knowledge between the children being exploited on the street and those who are living in luxury in gated communities, profiting at a distance from their misery.
I have urged the Government to go after those at the top for many years but, despite the best efforts of my police service and despite serious innovations in cracking phones and using the data gleaned to secure prosecutions, there is simply not enough direct proof in many cases to make those at the top accountable for the method of distribution at street level. So, I want us to consider what we could almost see as a corporate liability approach.
No one proven to be leading a drug supply operation that profits from child abuse should be able to escape a massively higher sentence by pleading ignorance of the practices further down the supply chain. It should be enough for us to prove that they facilitated the actions of the exploiters—by laundering money, by supplying drugs or weapons, or in any other criminal way. Nor should we be requiring a victim to testify, not for crimes where violence is rife. That would not be fair.
We need to give the most powerful people in the criminal underworld a huge incentive to clean house and stamp out county lines for good. If they do not, and if a street gang that they are supplying is grooming children and traumatising communities, they will pay a heavy price on top of the sentence for their direct offending. Put simply, those who do criminal business with child abusers like Isaac Donkoh should be held responsible for the consequences—for the lives lost, for the lives destroyed, and for the fear and the grief that my constituents endure.
We must take concerted, sustained and strategic action to end the child exploitation business model for good. I believe that this Bill takes us some way to doing just that. I humbly request that the Bill be given due consideration and passed into law.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Ms Lyn Brown, Florence Eshalomi, Robert Halfon, Catherine McKinnell, Charlotte Nichols, Janet Daby, Stephen Timms, Kate Osamor, Sir Mike Penning, Ms Karen Buck, Marsha De Cordova and Stella Creasy present the Bill.
Ms Lyn Brown accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 14 January 2022, and to be printed (Bill 220).

Professional Qualifications Bill [Lords]

Second Reading

Kwasi Kwarteng: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Services are a critical part of our economy, our trade and our lives. UK-qualified professionals in sectors including architecture, law and medicine, among many others, are at the forefront of their fields globally. It is a testament to their success that the UK is today the second largest exporter of services in the entire world. Good regulation is essential in providing the confidence that the market needs to grow. Good regulation is essential in providing the confidence that the market needs to grow. The Bill supports that endeavour so that services can not only thrive but provide excellent jobs in the future.

Margaret Greenwood: The British Dental Association has warned that the Bill could water down the standards required to practise. What are the Secretary of State’s thoughts on that? What assurance can he give the House that standards will be maintained?

Kwasi Kwarteng: I assure the hon. Lady that many such issues were rightly addressed and debated at great length in the other place. I have seen the concerns of some of our professional bodies. I feel that the Bill gives a measure of support, and I feel strongly that it is proportionate. It is on that basis that I am introducing the Bill and begging leave for it to be read a Second time.
I turn to the Bill’s elements—perhaps through these remarks the hon. Lady may get some reassurance. First, the Bill will revoke the current EU-based approach, temporarily retained from the end of the transition period, which often gives unreciprocated preferential access to holders of European economic area and Swiss qualifications, and put in place a new system that is global in outlook and can be tailored to the UK’s needs. The Bill is not a rejection of the valuable skills offered by EU professionals. On the contrary, it will ensure fairness and put them on an even footing with applicants from around the world. Professionals who have already had their qualifications recognised and work in the UK can continue to do so provided that they meet any ongoing practice requirements.
The Bill will also enable the Government and devolved Administrations to act promptly where shortages in services may occur and where consumers may well face unreasonable delays and charges. That is particularly important for regulated professions in the public sector. For example, in a 10-year period, just under a quarter of all UK recognition decisions were for secondary school teachers alone. Let me be clear, however, that the Bill is intended to complement, and not simply to replace, the Government’s ambitious domestic skills agenda.
The Bill will also support our trade agenda and boost UK businesses exporting services all over the world—in short, it will help spread our skills, innovation and expertise abroad. It will ensure that the UK can implement professional qualification provisions in the future trade deals that we all anticipate with enthusiasm. It will also ensure that UK regulators can be empowered to strike  deals on recognition with their overseas counterparts while taking full advantage of provisions in such future trade deals. Finally, it will help professionals, both at home and from overseas, to access global markets.
We are working collaboratively with the devolved Administrations and devolved regulators, and I very much hope that we will come to a resolution on legislative consent by the time that the Bill leaves the House. Of course, our regulators’ expertise underpins all our professions, and that is the very reason why the Bill has the protection of regulator autonomy at its very heart. Regulators agree that that is the right approach, and in general they have voiced hearty support for the Bill.
This Bill is about ensuring that the regulation of professional qualifications works for the whole of the country’s interests. It is about fairness, ensuring that wherever professionals may come from, they have an equal opportunity to practise their professions; and it is about making access to professions more transparent, as well as supporting our own UK trade agenda. On that basis, I commend it to the House.

Bill Esterson: Having the skilled workforce that our employers need is essential for the economic success of our country. The shortages of lorry drivers, carers, nurses, doctors and vets, and the shortages in hospitality and in farming, are well documented. Some are covered by this legislation, which, as the Secretary of State said, replaces EU law and allows the recognition of qualifications in other countries, so that workers can come here and fill the gaps in our economy. The requirements for our future economic success include the need for mutual recognition of qualifications to the benefit of our domestic businesses, public and voluntary sectors. Our success as we recover from covid will depend on the boosting of our prospects for trade internationally, for instance through the ability of UK professionals to apply their expertise abroad.
Regulators must remain independent, and it would undermine them and the high British standards they uphold were the Government to force them to accept professional qualifications awarded overseas which were of a lower standard. I shall return to that point, and explain how the Bill has been amended in the House of Lords.
The public will expect high standards of health, public safety and consumer protection to be maintained. We need to address shortages of key skilled staff, but the overseas qualifications that have been recognised in the UK by professional bodies need to have been accredited by the regulators themselves on the basis that they meet or exceed our standards, and not because the regulators are pressured into lowering standards by the Government as a consequence of poorly conceived international agreements. The Conservative peer Lord Bourne said that these were far from unreasonable fears, and I therefore hope that this issue will be explicitly addressed. The Government have made promises that standards will be maintained, and those promises need to be kept.
Most of the changes for which the Bill provides are designed to be implemented through secondary legislation. The use of statutory instruments has become the  Government’s favourite method of legislating, and it is essential that all changes made through secondary legislation can be scrutinised in full.
Attracting talent to the UK is essential for public services and the wider economy, but we are currently facing a skills shortage. The recognition of overseas qualifications is not a silver bullet to end that shortage; nor is it a long-term answer. A neglect of skills by this Government has seen further education funding halved and 200,000 apprenticeships lost since 2016. The Government must invest in skills at home and must do so in a strategic way, with a long term view. Indeed, a national and ambitious strategy would be very welcome, and is surely a part of any serious levelling-up agenda—if the said agenda is to become more than a slogan.
The shortage of intermediate and advanced-level technical skills has been highlighted for many years by business, trade unions and the Labour party. The need for overseas skilled workers, at least in the short to medium term, is one result, and when there are regulatory difficulties in recruiting from overseas, the scale of the problem becomes apparent. The most recent NHS figures reveal that there are about 39,000 vacancies for registered nurses in England. The president of the British Veterinary Association, James Russell, has said that between 400 and 500 vets working part time will be needed to fill in additional export health certificates for meat and fish products—from sausages to salmon—shipped to Northern Ireland alone, with many more needed owing to other increases in demand. The occupations of nurses and vets are among the 205 covered in the Bill.
Labour would seek regulatory equivalence for financial services and mutual recognition of professional qualifications, because we absolutely recognise the importance of looking after our world-class financial and professional service businesses. Our ability to trade internationally, not least to maximise our trade in services, is essential to our long-term economic prospects, to the creation of good jobs at home and to the prosperity of people and communities across the UK.
The initial version of the Bill did not stand up to scrutiny. The Financial Times reported the way in which the Government introduced it as a
“chaotic handling of a post-Brexit regime for recognising the qualifications of foreign professionals”,
in contrast to the Government’s claim that it would help to make Britain
“the best place in the world to work”.
I want Britain to be the best place in the world to work. I want us to buy more, make more and sell more in Britain, but serious concerns have been raised about the Government’s mismanagement of such an important piece of legislation. One concern was that the Bill as originally presented was not going to give British employers what they needed to ensure that our economy and our people could thrive.
Remarkably, the Government admitted introducing the Bill to Parliament without knowing which professions were in scope of the legislation. Labour argued in the Lords that we had to know who and what was in the scope of the Bill. It stands to reason that the relevant regulators and professions need to be aware of these changes. That was why we tabled amendments in the Lords to ensure that this information was made public. But the disarray continued. Having initially listed  160 professions and 50 regulators affected by the legislation, the Government twice published a revised list, ultimately increasing the numbers to 205 professions and 80 regulators. Due to the increased number of regulators in scope of the legislation, the Government also had to publish an updated impact assessment, with the total cost to regulators increasing by nearly £2 million. That is hardly the way to inspire confidence that the legislation will help businesses or skilled workers.
The Government were criticised from all sides in the Lords, including by those on their own Back Benches. Conservative peer Baroness Noakes said that
“it has all the hallmarks of being a Bill conceived and executed by officials with little or no ministerial policy direction or oversight…we learn that the Bill was drafted with a far-from-perfect understanding of the territory that it purports to cover. This is no way to legislate.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 22 June 2021; Vol. 813, c. 149.]
My Labour colleague Baroness Hayter said of the list:
“I understand that it has taken BEIS a little time to get it right. I think we have had two updates of the list, with some regulators added and some gone. I see that the pig farmers have gone from the latest list and the aircraft engineers have also disappeared, as have analytical chemists. However, we have in their place chicken farmers, schoolteachers and waste managers—so it seems that the Government can turn flying pigs into chickens.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 9 November 2021; Vol. 815, c. 1696.]
Given the shambolic way in which the Bill was introduced, it would have come as no surprise if someone had accused Ministers of making a right pig’s ear of the legislation. It is little wonder, then, that with wonderful understatement the Government spokesman, Lord Grimstone said—[Interruption.] The Secretary of State might want to hear this from his own Minister in the Lords. Lord Grimstone said that the errors and various revisions had made him feel “uncomfortable”, and that he had listened to the criticism with “a certain lack of enjoyment.” To the credit of Lord Grimstone, he had the grace to confess his embarrassment at the mistakes made by the Government.
I return to the matter of regulatory autonomy. Consistent arguments were made by peers that this legislation must not undermine the autonomy and independence of regulators. Independence is essential to protect domestic standards and consumers. Labour’s amendment in the Lords sought to guarantee regulator autonomy, and our amendment was supported by the Conservatives Lord Lansley and Baroness Noakes, and indeed across the parties. As a result, the Government amended the Bill to provide statutory protection for regulator autonomy. I was hoping that that was where the Secretary of State was going to go in his response to my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral West (Margaret Greenwood), but he did not go quite that far.
We are told by the Government that their changes to the Bill should protect domestic standards across 205 regulated professions and ensure that regulators are not obliged to reduce standards due to provisions included by the Government in free trade agreements. The change made to the Bill was welcomed by regulators and stakeholders. The Bill has been improved, thanks in large part to my Labour colleagues in the Lords. However, there remain outstanding concerns, including about how the Government will consult and seek the consent of devolved Administrations. We believe that the Bill should be amended to ensure that the devolved  Administrations have a proper voice when the powers in it are used. We will press these points in Committee, as we did in the Lords.
We as a country have serious shortages of skilled workers. Some, such as those related to heavy goods vehicle drivers, are well documented, but there are many others. To give just one other example, the most recent NHS figures reveal that there are about 39,000 vacancies for registered nurses in England, with many unfilled posts. The number of nurses from the European economic area joining the Nursing and Midwifery Council register has fallen by more than 90%, from 9,389 in the year to 31 March 2016 to just 810 in the year to 31 March 2021. Thousands of nursing shifts each week cannot be filled because of staff shortages, according to hospital safe staffing reports. That is unacceptable.
Of course, this is an area that requires attention from other Departments if it is to be addressed, but given the severity of the situation and the fact that the shortages were often predictable and predicted, it is essential that the Bill gets it right and ensures that our country has the skills it needs today and in the future. The Government’s approach to the Bill so far does not inspire confidence that it will play its part in addressing the shortage of nurses or, indeed, care staff, many grades of whom are also covered by the Bill.
The Bill provides a framework to allow mutual recognition of professional qualifications between regulators and professional bodies in the UK and the equivalent organisations overseas. The provisions in clauses 3 and 4 will allow for the implementation of regulator-to-regulator mutual recognition agreements and of the recognition arrangements in new international trade agreements. Importantly, the Law Society advises that the Bill will enable the mutual recognition agreement provisions in the UK-EU trade and co-operation agreement to be implemented, but it raises concerns about the arrangements. It says that the provisions for mutual recognition agreements in the TCA are largely based on the EU-Canada comprehensive economic and trade agreement, but no mutual recognition agreements have been signed between the EU and Canada in the three years since CETA came into force.
The concern that the Law Society raises is that the fact that no mutual recognition agreements have been signed using similar provisions may mean that the arrangements in the TCA are not sufficient for setting up such new agreements as are needed to encourage professionals to make up the shortages of nurses or vets, or those in 203 other professions. The Law Society therefore wants assurances from the Government—we will pursue the same point in Committee—that additional support, co-ordination and guidance will be available, if needed, on how to make the most of the provisions in the trade and co-operation agreement, not least in case they are to form the benchmark for future free trade agreements. I trust that the Minister, in winding up the debate, will address the very real concern about how to ensure that mutual recognition agreements are put in place in a timely fashion.
As it was the Law Society that carried out the analysis about the need for additional attention to be paid to how mutual recognition agreements will be negotiated, let us remember that legal services in the UK contribute £4.29 billion to our international trade each year. We are a global legal centre, and solicitors in England and Wales are respected the world over. The Minister with  responsibility for professional services—the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, the hon. Member for North East Derbyshire (Lee Rowley)—is not here, but perhaps his colleague who is responding to the debate can tell us, on his behalf, what assurances the Government can offer the Law Society, which wants legal qualifications to be recognised abroad and needs mutual recognition agreements to be secured but fears that, without additional Government impetus, none will be.
There is much still to do with this Bill. Lord Grimstone had the decency to accept its shortcomings and some of the changes needed, with Labour’s help, on regulator autonomy, but there is more to do in Committee and on Report in this House. On consultation with the devolved Administrations, we need the Government to come back to us. On the maintenance of high standards of health, public safety and consumer protection, on keeping promises that regulators will not be pressured by the Government into lowering standards, and on scrutiny of changes made through secondary legislation, we need assurances. On being able to attract professionals and fill the holes in our labour market, the Government need to do much better now, while putting in place a plan to address skills shortages in the long term.
The Labour party will address the concerns of employers, to support our economy, professional workers in this country and those who wish to work abroad. This is in our national interest. I hope that the Government will engage with us in that spirit and address the concerns raised in the Lords, by the professional organisations that need this legislation to be effective and by the devolved Administrations. I also hope that Ministers will address the shortcomings that we have identified in a way that delivers a system of mutual recognition of professional qualifications that is fit for purpose.

Owen Thompson: May I start by outlining that although the Scottish National party is not against the principles of the Bill, we cannot support it as it stands? I am not looking to divide the House at this stage, because I hear from the Secretary of State that constructive engagement is taking place. We will be happy to look at what we can agree as the Bill progresses through Committee and its remaining stages, but it is certainly worth putting it on the record that there are concerns in the Scottish Government and in elements of Scottish civil society—I do not think that anyone is in any doubt about that.
The Bill’s intention is to facilitate the cross-border recognition and regulation of professional qualifications so that we can ensure an integrated system for the transfer of professionals. It is certainly welcome that the Government are addressing the issue; the regulation and recognition of qualifications from abroad is particularly significant to smaller countries such as Scotland that seek to attract incredible skills and expertise from our neighbours. As an example, the world-leading Scottish food and drink industry, and indeed that of the whole UK, has traditionally been very heavily reliant on the services of EU-qualified vets, who were able to bring their skills to Scotland under the terms of EU rules on the mutual recognition of professional qualifications.
We owe a huge debt of gratitude to those who bring their qualifications and skills to contribute to our industries, which is precisely why it is so crucial to recognise consistency in qualifications to support working across countries. SNP Members’ preferred solution, of course, would be to recognise Scotland’s democratic vote in 2016 and rejoin the European Union, but it might be pushing it a bit to persuade Government Members to do that. In the meantime, it is important that we have legislation in place to ensure that skills and experience are not lost in any steps that we take.
The SNP supports the key principles that the Bill seeks to address, but there are technicalities. Technicalities often matter a great deal more than principle, and unfortunately the Bill is another example of the Government using technicalities to undermine devolution and hoping that no one will notice. I will come back to that point shortly, but it is worth running through some of the Bill’s devolved implications more generally.
The whole Bill applies to Scotland. Certain professions and qualifications are reserved to this place, but plenty are not, including teaching, the legal profession and some social care professions. The Bill does not make separate provision for devolved and reserved professions; it applies to all regulated professions active in Scotland, whether they are reserved or devolved. I appreciate that the Government recognise that point to a degree and are seeking legislative consent from the devolved legislatures to clauses 1 to 10 and 15, as they should. However, there are other clauses that evidently fall within devolved competence but for which the Government are not seeking permission from the devolved Administrations.
Clause 13(1) provides that a power to make regulations under the Bill
“includes power…to make consequential…or saving provision.”
That the UK Government can consider a clause relating to consequentials as outwith the Scottish Parliament’s competence is a bit surprising, to say the least.
Clause 16 is really the devolution buster. When the Bill was originally introduced, it defined “appropriate national authority” as
“the Secretary of State or the Lord Chancellor”,
forgetting that Ministers of a devolved Government are also appropriate national authorities for provisions that fall within devolved competence. As the Law Society of Scotland notes:
“The Scottish Ministers are also an ‘appropriate national authority’ in relation to regulations under the bill which contain only provision which are within the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament.”
Clause 16(3) helpfully remembers that Scottish Ministers are also a relevant authority. That is encouraging—it is progress—but there is still no provision requiring consent from a UK Minister to act in those areas.
In practice that means that any power conferred on the appropriate national authority in devolved areas can be exercised by UK Ministers. There is no requirement for UK Ministers to seek consent from the Scottish or Welsh Governments when exercising those powers. When the Secretary of State makes regulations under those powers, they would be subject to procedures in this place instead of the Scottish Parliament. The Bill alters the Executive competence of Scottish Ministers by enabling the Secretary of State to act in devolved areas without the requirement for consent. It is not the first time that that has happened, and for as long as Scotland remains part of the Union, I am sure it will not be the last.
The United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020, which was passed in this place despite the Scottish Parliament and Welsh Senedd’s refusal of consent, treats devolution as an inconvenience to get around, rather than as a backbone of our constitution. Through that Act, the Government have given themselves power to subject
“healthcare services provided in hospitals”
in Scotland to market access principles, without needing the Scottish Parliament’s consent. It creates an external Westminster body that is responsible for testing whether a Bill in Holyrood would affect the UK internal market. Power has been taken from Scotland’s elected Parliament and placed in the hands of unelected bureaucrats—I am sure that sounds familiar from somewhere.
The Bill falls into a pattern of power grabs. As I say, we do not seek to oppose it at this stage, but I urge the Minister and the Secretary of State to take those points on board. When the devolved nations raise concerns about consent being ignored or not required, the response we have tended to get time and again from the UK Government is that they do not intend to use those powers without consent. However, we need more than pinky promises when it comes to what does or does not require consent. In that way, the Government avoid clashing with the devolved nations and are forced to keep their promises. Indeed, the only possible reason they would not do it is that they do in fact intend to meddle with devolution without consent. If that is not the case, I look forward to amendments being tabled to make that case solidly, and I say to the Government: prove me wrong.
In conclusion, I urge the Government to take these simple steps. Our asks on the Bill are relatively straightforward. The Scottish Government are currently recommending that the Scottish Parliament does not give its consent to the Bill. Its provisions are only required because we are leaving the EU—something Scotland voted against—and it adds insult to injury by trampling on devolution, which Scotland overwhelmingly did vote for. The Government do not have to be hellbent on making the Bill controversial and unconstitutional, and I urge the Minister and the Secretary of State to table amendments to bring it into line with devolution.

Chi Onwurah: I will not detain the House for long, but I put on record that I think the brevity of this afternoon’s debate more reflects concern about the rise of the omicron variant than it does a lack of interest in this important subject. Professional qualifications are a key part of many sectors of our economy and public realm. They are significant factors in the protection of service users, from consumers to covid patients. The Bill promotes mutual recognition and professional qualifications. It increases opportunities for many, including nurses and lawyers, to work here and abroad.
Many Members of the House will have constituents who could be impacted by the Bill. Newcastle has many professionals who may benefit from the recognition of their qualifications, and many businesses that might look to recruit international talent. As my hon. Friend the Member for Sefton Central (Bill Esterson) emphasised,  it is essential that we maintain our high standards and recognise that qualification recognition, although important to our public services and economy, will not solve our skills shortage. The Government must invest in skills and also give our regions the power to do so. I emphasise that because Labour wants Britain to be the best place in the world to live and to work. The Bill started in the other place and my Labour colleagues’ work on it certainly reflects that. Their scrutiny and amendments have significantly improved the Bill by securing statutory protections for regulator autonomy and statutory consultations with regulators. Regulating key professions is not a market option; it is essential to protect service users and professionals.
Unfortunately, it remains the case that far too much of the actual content of the Bill will be passed as secondary legislation. That is unacceptable. In addition, as emphasised by the hon. Member for Midlothian (Owen Thompson), the devolved Administrations are not adequately consulted and must have a voice. The Government have a duty, indeed, to consult them and to seek the consent of devolved Administrations as the Bill passes through the House.
The Government’s handling of the Bill has been chaotic. As my hon. Friend the Member for Sefton Central (Bill Esterson) said, they introduced the Bill without knowing which professions were in its scope. We have a weak Prime Minister without the support of his own Back Benchers. But it is absolutely essential that we protect our regulators’ autonomy to ensure that our standards are fit for purpose and that we protect the professional standards that British citizens have come to rely on. Labour is therefore demanding that the Government amend the Bill to ensure that Parliament is given the opportunity to scrutinise secondary legislation appropriately and that the devolved Administrations are included in the regulation-making process. I look forward to the Government recognising the validity of our concerns as the Bill passes through this House.

Paul Scully: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central (Chi Onwurah). I thank everybody who has spoken during the debate. [Interruption.] Yes, all the people in this extensive debate.
This Bill will support trade through allowing regulations to implement trade agreements and allowing our own professionals to enter new markets. It will also support our work to meet domestic need, such as addressing national shortages, while ensuring that professional standards are maintained and regulator autonomy is protected.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State rightly noted the relevance of the Bill to supporting international trade for our world-leading services sectors. Provisions on the recognition of professional qualifications can make it easier for UK professionals to provide services overseas—for example, by making it easier for regulators to agree recognition agreements with overseas counterparts. With trade partners, the Government would look to agree provisions that could require regulators to operate routes to recognition. Our deals with Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein, for example, include this type of measure. But I can reassure the House that in any  agreement regulators’ existing autonomy to set standards and assess them against these deals would be maintained. Regulators are not obligated to enter into recognition agreements with counterpart regulators overseas.
Turning specifically to the UK-EU trade and co-operation agreement, this secures continued market access across a broad range of key services sectors, including professional and business services. It also includes the framework to agree professional-specific arrangements on the recognition of professional qualifications. BEIS has established a recognitions arrangement team that provides advice and support to regulators if they pursue these arrangements. The hon. Member for Sefton Central (Bill Esterson) talked about legal services, in particular. The TCA with the EU secures continued market access across a broad range of key services sectors, but on legal services we negotiated unprecedented provisions for UK lawyers to practise in the EU using their UK title in both UK and international law.
The UK proposed ambitious arrangements on professional qualifications with the TCA, but regrettably the EU did not engage with them. However, on legal services we do, as I say, have unprecedented provisions. The Bill is also consistent with our other international commitments, including the common travel area with Ireland. The Bill does not alter the Government’s determination to uphold our CTA commitments. The Government are also working closely with the Irish Government and regulators to ensure that UK and Irish professions have continued routes to recognition.
The hon. Member for Sefton Central, and others, talked about skills and skills shortages. I thank him for his point on that. However, it is important to be clear about how the Bill fits into the Government’s overall skills strategy. The Bill allows regulations to be made requiring a regulator to be able to receive applications, assess individuals’ qualifications and experience gained overseas, and decide on whether to treat them as if they had the required UK qualifications or experience. That can be done only where there is a clear unmet demand for the services of a regulated profession.
Separate from the provisions of the Bill, the Government can, when necessary, consider short-term measures to deal with skills shortages, as they have in the case of HGV drivers. The Bill also plays its part in making sure that aspiring and qualified professionals can find the information they need to access professions, including transparency requirements for regulators to have clearer information online, and it provides for an assistance centre to help professionals directly.
But neither the Bill nor such short-term measures take the place of our domestic skills strategy. Our lifetime skills guarantee will enable anybody to acquire the skills to do those jobs wherever they live and whatever the stage of their life. The Skills and Post-16 Education Bill currently going through Parliament will set up the country for success by giving people the skills and the education they need for work. It puts employers at the heart of the skills system to make sure that local skill provision meets local needs, so that people can thrive where they live.
I will respond to the points raised by the hon. Member for Midlothian (Owen Thompson) on concurrent powers in the Bill and securing legislative consent motions for the devolved Administrations. I want to reassure the House that the Bill has been carefully designed to respect the devolution settlements. The inclusion of  concurrent powers ensures that professions that fall within devolved legislative competence but are regulated on a UK-wide basis can be dealt with efficiently and appropriately under the Bill by the relevant and appropriate national authority.
The UK Government are working hard to seek common ground with the devolved Administrations. The devolved Administrations rejected our previous proposal of a formal duty to consult before regulating in areas of devolved competence, but we have now offered to place on the face of the Bill a stronger duty to consult. The amendment would require the Secretary of State or the Lord Chancellor to consult with devolved Administrations before making regulations under the Bill that contain provisions that could be made by devolved Administrations themselves, and then to publish a report on the consultation to be agreed with those devolved Administrations.
We have also offered to table an amendment to carve the Bill out of schedule 7B of the Government of Wales Act 2006, allowing the Senedd to remove UK Ministers’ concurrent powers if they deem that to be necessary. The Welsh Government will still be required to consult with the UK Government on the removal of those powers.
The Government’s approach demonstrates our commitment to transparency and scrutiny, and to preserving the balance of the devolution settlement while maintaining a coherent approach across the UK. Let me make it clear: it is not the Government’s intention to make regulations in relation to matters on which the devolved Administrations could legislate without seeking their views.
I hope that hon. Members from across the UK can support the Bill. We will continue to work in collaboration with the devolved Administrations and devolved regulators to ensure an approach that works for all parts of the UK. I look forward to discussing the Bill in Committee, and I commend it to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a Second time; to stand committed to a Public Bill Committee (Standing Order No. 63).

Professional Qualifications Bill [Lords] (Programme)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),
That the following provisions shall apply to the Professional Qualifications Bill [Lords]:

Committal

(1) The Bill shall be committed to a Public Bill Committee.

Proceedings in Public Bill Committee

(2) Proceedings in the Public Bill Committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion on Thursday 20 January 2022.
(3) The Public Bill Committee shall have leave to sit twice on the first day on which it meets.

Proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading

(4) Proceedings on Consideration shall (so far as not previously concluded) shall be brought to a conclusion one hour before the moment of interruption on the day on which proceedings on Consideration are commenced.
(5) Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the moment of interruption on that day.
(6) Standing Order No. 83B (Programming committees) shall not apply to proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading.

Other proceedings

(7) Any other proceedings on the Bill may be programmed.—(Andrea Jenkyns.)
Question agreed to.

Professional Qualifications Bill [Lords] (Money)

Queen’s recommendation signified.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 52(1)(a)),
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Professional Qualifications Bill [Lords], it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of:
(1) any expenditure incurred under or by virtue of the Act by a Minister of the Crown; and
(2) any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable under any other Act out of money so provided.—(Andrea Jenkyns.)
Question agreed to.

Marriage and Civil Partnership (Minimum Age) Bill (Money)

Queen’s recommendation signified.
Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Marriage and Civil Partnership (Minimum Age) Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of:
(a) any expenditure incurred under or by virtue of the Act by the Secretary of State, and
(b) any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable under any other Act out of money so provided.—(Tom Pursglove.)
Question agreed to.

Business without Debate

Delegated Legislation

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Private International Law

That the draft Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments (2005 Hague Convention and 2007 Hague Convention) (Amendment) Regulations 2022, which were laid before this House on 16 November, be approved.—(Andrea Jenkyns.)
Question agreed to.

Eleanor Laing: Did I see a point of order anywhere in the House? No, I have not as yet seen a point of order, but—

Jonathan Reynolds: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. As there is an opportunity for a point of order, would it be possible to place on the record, on behalf of all colleagues, our best wishes to all the staff of the House for Christmas? We thank them for their tremendous service throughout  the year in looking after us, which I know is appreciated by all colleagues. This is a useful opportunity to put that on the record.

Eleanor Laing: I am extremely grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that point of order. It is not often that we have time to stop for a moment and think about all the people who work so hard all through the year to help and support us in the work that we do here in the Chamber, in Committees and in other duties around this wonderful Palace of Westminster.
What the people who elect us see is what happens in this Chamber, and it is good to have the opportunity to tell them that that is the tip of the iceberg. In fact, an enormous amount of work goes on to support what happens in this Chamber. Every motion that comes before this House has taken hours and hours of preparation, and every consequence of the decisions made in this Chamber takes days and weeks of implementation.
I would particularly like to thank the Clerks, who keep us on the straight and narrow. No matter what is happening in the outside world and no matter what is happening around the rest of Westminster, we make sure that what happens here in the Chamber is done in good order and properly. I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point of order, and I particularly use this opportunity to thank those who work so hard to help us.

Chi Onwurah: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. May I not only echo your words on that, but emphasise how important it has been that the staff have been able to provide that support, even in the midst of a pandemic? I hope that the staff of the House—together with everyone in the nation—have had the opportunity to get boosted in the midst of this pandemic and of their many duties, for which we are all so very grateful. We wish everyone a happy Christmas and a merry, boosted new year.

Eleanor Laing: I thank the hon. Lady very much for her point of order. It is lovely that she, as a senior Opposition Front Bencher, and her colleagues are speaking for all their colleagues in giving those good wishes to everybody here. I echo, again, her thanks.

Seema Malhotra: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. May I add my thanks? I particularly wanted to mention the Clerks, to whom you have referred, and the work that they know will be coming to them as a result of today’s Second Reading debate. I thank them for the support they continue to give in making sure that we can bring forward the best possible amendments to legislation.
May I also thank Mr Speaker, yourself and the other Deputy Speakers, who deal with all sorts of situations in the House? Every day seems to create a new unique situation to deal with. I can see that all the tools and tricks in the box have been brought out to help manage this Chamber in the best possible way so that we can continue to have the best possible informed debate and deal with the challenges that face us.

Eleanor Laing: I sincerely thank the hon. Lady for her point of order and for her kind wishes. I will pass on to Mr Speaker the good wishes that have  echoed around the Chamber. He certainly works extremely hard to keep this ship afloat. I echo the very kind good wishes of the hon. Lady and will make sure that Mr Speaker knows of the good wishes that the entire House is sending to him.

Adjournment

Resolved, That this House do now adjourn.—(Andrea Jenkyns.)
House adjourned.